Upload
others
View
4
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Reliable and Real-time Wireless Sensor Networks: Protocols and Medical Applications
Octav ChiparaUniversity of California, San Diego
https://sites.google.com/site/ochipara/
1
Wireless sensor networks• Wireless sensor networks:
• sensing + computation + wireless communication
• Trade-off computational power in favor of• low-power operation
• form factor and weight
• lower cost (today ≈ $70)
• ➡ enable continuous monitoring of physical phenomena at high resolution over long periods
2
TelosB MicaZ
Irene
Mica Dot
AcmeSeeMote
Pervasive monitoring enables personalized care
3
Detection of clinical deterioration
Effective emergency response
Analysis of motor function
*
Picture credit: *Mercury Project, Harvard
Research contributions
4
How do we deliver real-‐-me and reliable communica-on?
1
1
1
1
1
1
1 1
1
1
1
Coverage using wall!class model (Jolley)
How do we deploy wireless sensor networks?
How do we manage limited energy budgets?
How do we ensure robustness in real-‐world systems?
Research contributions
5
Protocols & schedulability analysis for real-‐-me sensor networks [TMC’11][RTSS’07][ICNP’06][IWQOS’06][IPSN’06] [ICDCS’05]
1
1
1
1
1
1
1 1
1
1
1
Coverage using wall!class model (Jolley)
Radio mapping toolkit for assessing network coverage [IPSN’10]
Radio power management based on workload proper-es [SenSys’08][SenSys’07][WCMC’09][ICDCS’05]
Cross-‐disciplinary medical collabora-ons:clinical monitoring, emergency response [SenSys’10][AMIA’09]
Research contributions
5
Protocols & schedulability analysis for real-‐-me sensor networks [TMC’11][RTSS’07][ICNP’06][IWQOS’06][IPSN’06] [ICDCS’05]
1
1
1
1
1
1
1 1
1
1
1
Radio mapping toolkit for assessing network coverage [IPSN’10]
Radio power management based on workload proper-es [SenSys’08][SenSys’07][WCMC’09][ICDCS’05]
Cross-‐disciplinary medical collabora-ons:clinical monitoring, emergency response [SenSys’10][AMIA’09]
Research contributions
5
Protocols & schedulability analysis for real-‐-me sensor networks [TMC’11][RTSS’07][ICNP’06][IWQOS’06][IPSN’06] [ICDCS’05]
1
1
1
1
1
1
1 1
1
1
1
Radio mapping toolkit for assessing network coverage [IPSN’10]
Radio power management based on workload proper-es [SenSys’08][SenSys’07][WCMC’09][ICDCS’05]
Cross-‐disciplinary medical collabora-ons:clinical monitoring, emergency response [SenSys’10][AMIA’09]
Detecting clinical deterioration at low cost
• Clinical deterioration in hospitalized patients• 4-17% suffer adverse events (e.g., cardiac or respiratory arrests)
• up to 70% of such events could be prevented.
• Early detection of clinical deterioration• clinical deterioration is often preceded by changes in vitals
• Real-time patient monitoring is required• wired patient monitoring ➡ inconvenient
• wireless telemetry systems ➡ too expensive for wide adoption
• most general hospital units collect vitals manually and infrequently
6
Detecting clinical deterioration at low cost
• Clinical deterioration in hospitalized patients• 4-17% suffer adverse events (e.g., cardiac or respiratory arrests)
• up to 70% of such events could be prevented.
• Early detection of clinical deterioration• clinical deterioration is often preceded by changes in vitals
• Real-time patient monitoring is required• wired patient monitoring ➡ inconvenient
• wireless telemetry systems ➡ too expensive for wide adoption
• most general hospital units collect vitals manually and infrequently
Goal: reliable and real-‐.me wireless clinical monitoring for general hospital units
6
Wireless sensor networks vs. Wi-Fi• Commercial telemetry systems (Phillips, Cisco, GE):
• Wi-Fi ➡ single-hop wireless, wired backbone
• adoption limited to specialized hospital units
• Benefits of wireless sensor networks• more energy efficient than Wi-Fi at low data rate
• common vital signs have low data rate
• nurses are too busy to change batteries!
• low deployment cost
• eliminate wired infrastructure ➡ mesh networks
• ➡ ease of adoption (e.g., field hospitals, rural areas)
• reliability of wireless sensor networks - an open question!
7
Related work• Wireless sensor networks for medical applications
• Assisted living: ALARM-NET
• Disaster recovery: AID-N, CodeBlue, WIISARD
• Emergency room: MEDISN, SMART
• Motion analysis: Mercury
• Numerous systems, limited results from clinical deployments
8
MEDISN, John Hopkins
Code Blue, Harvard
Code Blue, Harvard
Related work• Wireless sensor networks for medical applications
• Assisted living: ALARM-NET
• Disaster recovery: AID-N, CodeBlue, WIISARD
• Emergency room: MEDISN, SMART
• Motion analysis: Mercury
• Numerous systems, limited results from clinical deployments
8
MEDISN, John Hopkins
Code Blue, Harvard
Code Blue, Harvard
First holistic reliability study performed in a hospital unit using sensor networks
System architecture• Base-station
• laptop that will store medical data
• Relay nodes• redundant deployment:
• coverage
• fault-tolerance
• plugged into wall outlets
• Patient nodes• pulse oximeter + microcontroller
+ radio
• same pulse-oximeter as used in hospitals
• battery powered
Patient node
Relay node
9
Reliable network architecture• Initial solution: use CTP [1] all nodes in the network
• Insight: isolate the impact of mobility
• Solution: two-tier architecture for end-to-end data delivery
• Dynamic Relay Association Protocol (DRAP): Patient ➡ 1st relay• DRAP used on mobile nodes ➡ dynamically associate relays
• single-hop protocol handles patient mobility
• simplify power management in patient nodes (send only)
• Stationary relay network: 1st relay ➡ … ➡ base station• CTP used on fixed nodes ➡ reuse well-tested CTP
• wall-plugged ➡ no need to worry about energy
10[1] O. Gnawali et. al., Collection Tree Protocol. SenSys 2009
• Step-down cardiac care unit• 16 patient rooms, 1200 m2
• Network• 18 relays: redundant network
• longest path: 3-4 hops
• channel 26 of IEEE 802.15.4
• HR and SpO2 collected every 30/60s• disposable adult probes
• data not available to nursing staff
• 46 patients enrolled• 41 days in total, 2-68 hours per patient
• up to 3 patients at a time
• 5 patients excluded from analysis
Clinical deployment
base station
relays
11
Potential for detecting clinical deterioration
Pulmonary edema
Sleep apnea
!"
#$%&
Bradycardia
!"
#$%&
!"
#$%&
12
System reliability• Network reliability per patient: 99.68% median, range 95.2% - 100%
• effectiveness of two-tier DRAP/CTP network architecture
• Sensing reliability per patient: 80% median, range 0.46% - 97.69% • 29% of patients with sensing reliability < 50%
• System reliability dominated by sensing reliability!
13
Reliability metrics
14
valid reading invalid reading
Reliability metrics
14
valid reading invalid reading
time-to-failure
Reliability metrics
14
valid reading invalid reading
time-to-failure time-to-recovery
Sensing reliability• Failures are common: median time-to-failure 2 min
• long-tailed distribution ➡ caused by sensor disconnections
• short failure bursts ➡ caused by human movement
• Mechanisms for improving reliability• oversampling
• disconnection alarmsCDF of time-to-failure CDF of time-to-recovery
15
Sensing reliability• Failures are common: median time-to-failure 2 min
• long-tailed distribution ➡ caused by sensor disconnections
• short failure bursts ➡ caused by human movement
• Mechanisms for improving reliability• oversampling
• disconnection alarmsCDF of time-to-failure CDF of time-to-recovery
long tail
15
Sensing reliability• Failures are common: median time-to-failure 2 min
• long-tailed distribution ➡ caused by sensor disconnections
• short failure bursts ➡ caused by human movement
• Mechanisms for improving reliability• oversampling
• disconnection alarmsCDF of time-to-failure CDF of time-to-recovery
90% of outages < 4 min
15
Sensing reliability• Failures are common: median time-to-failure 2 min
• long-tailed distribution ➡ caused by sensor disconnections
• short failure bursts ➡ caused by human movement
• Mechanisms for improving reliability• oversampling
• disconnection alarmsCDF of time-to-failure CDF of time-to-recovery
90% of outages < 4 min
90% of outages < 2 min
15
Relax sampling requirement• Increase the required sampling period to 5, 10, 15 min
• consider a success if one valid measurement per sampling
• still orders of magnitude higher rate than manual measurement
• Oversampling is beneficial• reliability is increased, but at a diminishing return
Sensing reliability for different required sampling rates
16
Relax sampling requirement• Increase the required sampling period to 5, 10, 15 min
• consider a success if one valid measurement per sampling
• still orders of magnitude higher rate than manual measurement
• Oversampling is beneficial• reliability is increased, but at a diminishing return
Sensing reliability for different required sampling rates
16
Relax sampling requirement• Increase the required sampling period to 5, 10, 15 min
• consider a success if one valid measurement per sampling
• still orders of magnitude higher rate than manual measurement
• Oversampling is beneficial• reliability is increased, but at a diminishing return
Sensing reliability for different required sampling rates
16
Alarms for sensor disconnections• Automatically notify a nurse after receiving no valid data for a time
• balance nursing effort and reliability gain
• similar reliability to 5 and 10 min timeout
• at 15 min timeout ➡ 1.55 interventions per patient, per day
Sensing reliability with different timeouts # of alarms per patient, per day
17
Alarms for sensor disconnections• Automatically notify a nurse after receiving no valid data for a time
• balance nursing effort and reliability gain
• similar reliability to 5 and 10 min timeout
• at 15 min timeout ➡ 1.55 interventions per patient, per day
Sensing reliability with different timeouts # of alarms per patient, per day
17
Alarms and oversampling are complementary• Complementary mechanisms
• alarms ➡ handles disconnections
• oversampling ➡ handles intermittent failures
Sensing reliability when alarms and oversampling are combined
18
Alarms and oversampling are complementary• Complementary mechanisms
• alarms ➡ handles disconnections
• oversampling ➡ handles intermittent failures
Sensing reliability when alarms and oversampling are combined
18
Contributions• Reliable two-tier architecture: 99.68% reliability per patient
• Cross-disciplinary research - key to understanding the problem• system reliability is dominated by sensing errors
• complementary mechanisms for combating sensing errors
• oversampling
• disconnections alarms
• ➡ reduced patient with low reliability (<70%) from 42% to 12%
• Potential for detecting deterioration• possible through inspection by clinician
• preliminary results of automatic detection of clinical deterioration
19
Contributions• Reliable two-tier architecture: 99.68% reliability per patient
• Cross-disciplinary research - key to understanding the problem• system reliability is dominated by sensing errors
• complementary mechanisms for combating sensing errors
• oversampling
• disconnections alarms
• ➡ reduced patient with low reliability (<70%) from 42% to 12%
• Potential for detecting deterioration• possible through inspection by clinician
• preliminary results of automatic detection of clinical deterioration
19
O. Chipara, C. Lu, T. C. Bailey, and G.-C. Roman. Reliable Clinical Monitoring using Wireless Sensor Networks: Experiences in a Step-down Hospital Unit. SenSys 2010
O. Chipara, C. Brooks, S. Bhattacharya, C. Lu, R. Chamberlain, G-C Roman, and T. C. Bailey. Reliable Real-time Clinical Monitoring Using Sensor Network Technology. AMIA 2010
Research contributions
20
Medical applica-ons:clinical monitoring, emergency response
1
1
1
1
1
1
1 1
1
1
1
Schedulability analysis for real-‐-me sensor networks
Radio mapping toolkit for assessing network coverage
Radio power management based on workload proper-es
Research contributions
20
Medical applica-ons:clinical monitoring, emergency response
1
1
1
1
1
1
1 1
1
1
1
Schedulability analysis for real-‐-me sensor networks
Radio mapping toolkit for assessing network coverage
Radio power management based on workload proper-es
Real-time wireless sensor network
• Medical systems will have stringent non-functional requirements• low latency, high throughput, and reliability
• Best-effort and brittle systems• CSMA ➡ difficult to bound performance
• Predicable systems ≡ check that its requirements are met
• TDMA ➡ fixed schedules difficult to adapt
• Build a predictable query service for sensor networks• optimized for sensor networks
• dispense with fixed schedules ➡ increased flexibility
Clinical Monitoring Fall Detection Smart Homes
21
Query services for sensor networks
22
SELECT acceleration FROM acceleration-sensorsSAMPLE RATE 10HzDEADLINE 0.1s
• Query - actual specification
• Query instance - repeated every period to collect data
• Properties of query services:
• shared routing tree
• data aggregation ➡ precedence constraints
23
Network model• Graph model:
• Vertices - all nodes in network
• Communication edge (AB): A’s transmission may be received by B
• Interference edges (AB): B cannot receive while A transmits, even though B cannot decode A’s transmission
• Two transmissions are conflict free if:• (AB) and (CD) transmit
• (AD) and (CB) are not present in the graph
• Constructed using Radio Interference Detection (RID)[1]
A B
C D
[1] G. Zhou et. al., RID: radio interference detection in wireless sensor Networks. INFOCOM’05
23
Network model• Graph model:
• Vertices - all nodes in network
• Communication edge (AB): A’s transmission may be received by B
• Interference edges (AB): B cannot receive while A transmits, even though B cannot decode A’s transmission
• Two transmissions are conflict free if:• (AB) and (CD) transmit
• (AD) and (CB) are not present in the graph
• Constructed using Radio Interference Detection (RID)[1]
A B
C D
[1] G. Zhou et. al., RID: radio interference detection in wireless sensor Networks. INFOCOM’05
23
Network model• Graph model:
• Vertices - all nodes in network
• Communication edge (AB): A’s transmission may be received by B
• Interference edges (AB): B cannot receive while A transmits, even though B cannot decode A’s transmission
• Two transmissions are conflict free if:• (AB) and (CD) transmit
• (AD) and (CB) are not present in the graph
• Constructed using Radio Interference Detection (RID)[1]
A B
C D
[1] G. Zhou et. al., RID: radio interference detection in wireless sensor Networks. INFOCOM’05
Dynamic query scheduling
• Planner: off-line
• constructs plans for a single query instance
• plan = seq. of transmissions necessary to deliver data to base station
• reduces query latency based on precedence constraints
• Scheduler: run-time
• dynamically schedule multiple concurrent queries
• improve throughput by concurrently executing multiple instances
24
Separation of concerns
25
Planner
Workload
Routing
Interference
Scheduler
Plans
Overload?ratecontrol
run-time
off-line
stateprocess
Planner: plans for single instances• Plan: a sequence of steps, each containing one/more transmissions
• interference constraints: transmissions in each step do not conflict
• precedence constraints: children transmit before their parents
• reliability constraints: each node transmits sufficient times
26
0 q1 n p2 f k o z s3 e l h t r4 c j g w5 b m6 d
senders
steps
a
b
c
d
f
g
hs
r
k
t
j
z
w
m
l
n
p q
e
o
Planner: plans for single instances• Plan: a sequence of steps, each containing one/more transmissions
• interference constraints: transmissions in each step do not conflict
• precedence constraints: children transmit before their parents
• reliability constraints: each node transmits sufficient times
26
0 q1 n p2 f k o z s3 e l h t r4 c j g w5 b m6 d
senders
steps
a
b
c
d
f
g
hs
r
k
t
j
z
w
m
l
n
p q
e
o
Planner: plans for single instances• Plan: a sequence of steps, each containing one/more transmissions
• interference constraints: transmissions in each step do not conflict
• precedence constraints: children transmit before their parents
• reliability constraints: each node transmits sufficient times
26
0 q1 n p2 f k o z s3 e l h t r4 c j g w5 b m6 d
senders
steps
a
b
c
d
f
g
hs
r
k
t
j
z
w
m
l
n
p q
e
o
01
2
Scheduling multiple query instances • A safe scheduler:
• execute a single query instance at a time in the network
• instances are executed non-preemptively based on their plans
• Drawback: reduced throughput!
10 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9Slots:
Q1:
Q2:
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Q1: start = 0, period = 10 Q2: start = 8, period = 16
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
27
delay
Scheduling multiple query instances • A safe scheduler:
• execute a single query instance at a time in the network
• instances are executed non-preemptively based on their plans
• Drawback: reduced throughput!
10 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9Slots:
Q1:
Q2:
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Q1: start = 0, period = 10 Q2: start = 8, period = 16
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
27
delay
Reduced throughput?
Enabling spatial reuse
• Min. step distance is the smallest number Δ such that:if distance between any two steps i and j exceeds Δ => conflict-free
• Enforce a gap of at least min. step distance between the start of consecutive instances ➡ conflict-free transmission
28
di,j = |i− j| ≥ ∆
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
Enabling spatial reuse
• Min. step distance is the smallest number Δ such that:if distance between any two steps i and j exceeds Δ => conflict-free
• Enforce a gap of at least min. step distance between the start of consecutive instances ➡ conflict-free transmission
28
di,j = |i− j| ≥ ∆
Min step distance: Δ = 0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
0 Δ Δ Δ Δ Δ Δ Δ1 Δ Δ Δ Δ Δ Δ Δ2 Δ Δ Δ Δ Δ Δ Δ3 Δ Δ Δ Δ Δ Δ Δ4 Δ Δ Δ Δ Δ Δ Δ5 Δ Δ Δ Δ Δ Δ Δ6 Δ Δ Δ Δ Δ Δ Δ
Enabling spatial reuse
• Min. step distance is the smallest number Δ such that:if distance between any two steps i and j exceeds Δ => conflict-free
• Enforce a gap of at least min. step distance between the start of consecutive instances ➡ conflict-free transmission
28
di,j = |i− j| ≥ ∆
Min step distance: Δ = 1
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
0 Δ Δ Δ Δ Δ Δ1 Δ Δ Δ Δ Δ Δ2 Δ Δ Δ Δ Δ Δ3 Δ Δ Δ Δ Δ Δ4 Δ Δ Δ Δ Δ Δ5 Δ Δ Δ Δ Δ Δ6 Δ Δ Δ Δ Δ Δ
Enabling spatial reuse
• Min. step distance is the smallest number Δ such that:if distance between any two steps i and j exceeds Δ => conflict-free
• Enforce a gap of at least min. step distance between the start of consecutive instances ➡ conflict-free transmission
28
di,j = |i− j| ≥ ∆
Min step distance: Δ = 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
0 Δ Δ Δ Δ1 Δ Δ Δ2 Δ Δ3 Δ Δ4 Δ Δ5 Δ Δ Δ6 Δ Δ Δ Δ
Enabling spatial reuse
• Min. step distance is the smallest number Δ such that:if distance between any two steps i and j exceeds Δ => conflict-free
• Enforce a gap of at least min. step distance between the start of consecutive instances ➡ conflict-free transmission
28
di,j = |i− j| ≥ ∆
Min step distance: Δ = 4
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
0 Δ Δ Δ1 Δ Δ2 Δ3
4 Δ5 Δ Δ6 Δ Δ Δ
Enabling spatial reuse
• Min. step distance is the smallest number Δ such that:if distance between any two steps i and j exceeds Δ => conflict-free
• Enforce a gap of at least min. step distance between the start of consecutive instances ➡ conflict-free transmission
28
di,j = |i− j| ≥ ∆
DCQS scheduler that support spatial reuse• Scheduler:
• release queue; Qn first instance in release queue
• Qc last instance that started execution
• start Qn after Qc completes at least ∆ steps
• Properties:• predictable throughput 1/Δ
10 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9Slots:
Q1:
Q2:
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Q1: start = 0, period = 10 Q2: start = 8, period = 16
29
DCQS scheduler that support spatial reuse• Scheduler:
• release queue; Qn first instance in release queue
• Qc last instance that started execution
• start Qn after Qc completes at least ∆ steps
• Properties:• predictable throughput 1/Δ
10 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9Slots:
Q1:
Q2:
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Q1: start = 0, period = 10 Q2: start = 8, period = 16
29
NS2 simulations
30
0
62.5
125
187.5
250
312.5
375
437.5
500
2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 5.5 6 6.5 7
Thro
ughp
ut (d
ata
rep
s./s
)
Total query rate (Hz)
DRANDDCQSDCQS-RC
• Setup: 81 nodes, 675m x 675m, 802.11 networks settings
• Workload: four queries with rates 8:4:2:1, increase rates prop.
NS2 simulations
30
0
62.5
125
187.5
250
312.5
375
437.5
500
2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 5.5 6 6.5 7
Thro
ughp
ut (d
ata
rep
s./s
)
Total query rate (Hz)
DRANDDCQSDCQS-RC
58.6%
Rate control avoids overloads!
• Setup: 81 nodes, 675m x 675m, 802.11 networks settings
• Workload: four queries with rates 8:4:2:1, increase rates prop.
Contributions• A novel approach to transmission scheduling
• takes advantage of workload semantics
• integrates routing and reliability concerns
• dynamic transmission scheduling ➡ adapts to workload changes
• throughput improvement ≈ 58%, tight bounds
• Real-time query scheduling• provides bounded message latencies under static priorities
• bridges the gap between real-time theory and sensor networks
• Recently, extended analysis to support flows
31
Contributions• A novel approach to transmission scheduling
• takes advantage of workload semantics
• integrates routing and reliability concerns
• dynamic transmission scheduling ➡ adapts to workload changes
• throughput improvement ≈ 58%, tight bounds
• Real-time query scheduling• provides bounded message latencies under static priorities
• bridges the gap between real-time theory and sensor networks
• Recently, extended analysis to support flows
31
O. Chipara, C. Lu, J. Stankovic, and G.-C. Roman. Dynamic Conflict-free Query Scheduling for Wireless Sensor Networks. ICNP 2006
O. Chipara, C. Lu, and G. Roman. Real-time Query Scheduling for Wireless Sensor Networks. RTSS 2007
O. Chipara, C. Lu, J. Stankovic, and G.-C. Roman. Dynamic Conflict-free Query Scheduling for Wireless Sensor Networks. IEEE TMC 2011
Research opportunities in medical domain• Low-cost physiological monitoring
• applications: clinical deterioration, diabetes, Parkinson’s
• trade-off between accuracy and resource utilization (energy, bandwidth)
• Smart living spaces for elderly patients• applications: activity tracking, medication reminders
• sensor placement to improve activity detection
• Monitoring communities• applications: diseases control, support groups (weight/depression)
• extraction of social relationships
• Integrated medical systems• emergence of rich electronic medical records
32
Research challenges for computer science• Predictable and robust wireless embedded systems
• holistic approach: sensing + computation + wireless
• ➡ techniques and tools to reason about system properties
• Interoperability• heterogenous systems with extreme differences in capabilities
• multiple wireless technologies that need to co-exist
• privacy and security cannot be sacrificed
• ➡ resource-aware middleware for efficiency
• Management and configuration• large scale systems
• ➡ algorithms for self-configuration and self-organization
• ➡ frequency- and time-domain wireless spectrum allocation
33
Acknowledgements• Advisors
• Chenyang Lu and Catalin Roman, WUSTL
• William Griswold, UCSD
• Computer science collaborators• Jack Stankovic, UVA
• William Smart, WUSTL
• Medical collaborators • Thomas Bailey, Medical School @ WUSTL
• Nurses at Barnes Jewish Hospital
• Ted Chan and Colleen Buono, EMS & Disaster Medicine @ UCSD
34
?questions
35
Clinical Monitoring
Patients are mobile• Technical challenge: on general hospitals are ambulatory
• Initial solution: reuse CTP[1] to collect data from sensor nodes
• Mobility significantly degrades the performance of CTP
• routing loops
• stale information in routing tables
• retransmissions worsen the problem
37[1] Omprakash Gnawali et. al., Collection Tree Protocol. SenSys 2009
Patients are mobile• Technical challenge: on general hospitals are ambulatory
• Initial solution: reuse CTP[1] to collect data from sensor nodes
• Mobility significantly degrades the performance of CTP
• routing loops
• stale information in routing tables
• retransmissions worsen the problem
37
IH
GF
A
D
C
B
E
Patients are mobile• Technical challenge: on general hospitals are ambulatory
• Initial solution: reuse CTP[1] to collect data from sensor nodes
• Mobility significantly degrades the performance of CTP
• routing loops
• stale information in routing tables
• retransmissions worsen the problem
37
IH
GF
A
D
C
B
E
Patients are mobile• Technical challenge: on general hospitals are ambulatory
• Initial solution: reuse CTP[1] to collect data from sensor nodes
• Mobility significantly degrades the performance of CTP
• routing loops
• stale information in routing tables
• retransmissions worsen the problem
37
IH
GF
A
D
C
B
A ...B ...D ...
E
Patients are mobile• Technical challenge: on general hospitals are ambulatory
• Initial solution: reuse CTP[1] to collect data from sensor nodes
• Mobility significantly degrades the performance of CTP
• routing loops
• stale information in routing tables
• retransmissions worsen the problem
37
IH
GF
A
D
C
B
A ...B ...D ...
E
Patients are mobile• Technical challenge: on general hospitals are ambulatory
• Initial solution: reuse CTP[1] to collect data from sensor nodes
• Mobility significantly degrades the performance of CTP
• routing loops
• stale information in routing tables
• retransmissions worsen the problem
37
IH
GF
A
D
C
B
A ...B ...D ...
E
Patients are mobile• Technical challenge: on general hospitals are ambulatory
• Initial solution: reuse CTP[1] to collect data from sensor nodes
• Mobility significantly degrades the performance of CTP
• routing loops
• stale information in routing tables
• retransmissions worsen the problem
37
IH
GF
A
D
C
B
A ...B ...D ...
E
Patients are mobile• Technical challenge: on general hospitals are ambulatory
• Initial solution: reuse CTP[1] to collect data from sensor nodes
• Mobility significantly degrades the performance of CTP
• routing loops
• stale information in routing tables
• retransmissions worsen the problem
37
IH
GF
A
D
C
B
A ...B ...D ...
E
Patients are mobile• Technical challenge: on general hospitals are ambulatory
• Initial solution: reuse CTP[1] to collect data from sensor nodes
• Mobility significantly degrades the performance of CTP
• routing loops
• stale information in routing tables
• retransmissions worsen the problem
37
IH
GF
A
D
C
B
A ...B ...D ...
E
Sources of sensing errors
Hand movement Improper placement
0
25
50
75
100
0 3.75 7.5 11.25 15
Time (min)
0
25
50
75
100
0 3.75 7.5 11.25 15
Hea
rt R
ate
Time (min)
38
Automatic detection of clinical deterioration
• Sample: 29 with significant cardiac/pulmonary problems and 7 without
• CUSUM ➡ partitions time series into chunks with similar statistical props.
• Chunk features: 5th- and 95-percentiles, slope of linear fit
• deterioration detected by comparison with thresholds
39
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1Tru
e P
osi
tive
Ra
te/(
sen
sitiv
ity)
False Positive Rate/(1 - specificity)
Random
79.3%
Power management• Radio consumes 19 mA
• DRAP achieves duty-cycles of 0.12% - 2.09% during trial
• Sensor consumes 24 mA• periodically turn the sensor on
• 8-seconds warm-up time
• sample for 7 seconds
• Internal flash 2.3 mA• used to maintain statistics
• cache data in RAM, write infrequently to the internal flash
• Achieves up to 3 days of continuous operation
40
Network reliability• Time-to-failure
• time interval during which the system continuously operates until failure
• Time-to-recovery• time interval from the occurrence of a failure until the system recovers
CDF of time-to-failure CDF of time-to-recovery
41
Network reliability• Time-to-failure
• time interval during which the system continuously operates until failure
• Time-to-recovery• time interval from the occurrence of a failure until the system recovers
CDF of time-to-failure CDF of time-to-recovery
median .me to failure 19 min
41
Network reliability• Time-to-failure
• time interval during which the system continuously operates until failure
• Time-to-recovery• time interval from the occurrence of a failure until the system recovers
CDF of time-to-failure CDF of time-to-recovery
median .me to failure 19 min
recover from 90% of failures within 2 mins => quick recovery
41
System architecture
42
CTP under normal activity
• Normal activity experiment showed
• most packet losses occur on the first hop
• packet drops tend to follow user movement
first-hop reliability: 85.38%relay reliability: 96.49%end-to-end reliability: 82.39%
43
DRAP reliability
DRAP
one-hop reliability: 100%relay reliability: 99.33%end-to-end reliability: 99.33%
CTP
one-hop reliability: 85.38%relay reliability: 96.49%end-to-end reliability: 82.39%
44
Root cause of failures• Hypothesis:
mobility leads to CTP using outdate routes
base station
A1A2
A3
A4
P
AN
45
Root cause of failures• Hypothesis:
mobility leads to CTP using outdate routes
base station
A1A2
A3
A4
B1
B2B3
P
AN
45
Root cause of failures• Hypothesis:
mobility leads to CTP using outdate routes
base station
A1A2
A3
A4
B1
B2B3
P
AN
45
Root cause of failures• Hypothesis:
mobility leads to CTP using outdate routes
base station
A1A2
A3
A4
B1
B2B3
P
AN
45
Root cause of failures• Hypothesis:
mobility leads to CTP using outdate routes
base station
A1A2
A3
A4
B1
B2B3
P
AN
45
Root cause of failures• Hypothesis:
mobility leads to CTP using outdate routes
base station
A1A2
A3
A4
B1
B2B3
P
AN
45
Root cause of failures• Hypothesis:
mobility leads to CTP using outdate routes
base station
A1A2
A3
A4
B1
B2B3
P
AN
45
Real-time Sensor Networks
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
Δ = 7
Enabling spatial reuse• Minimum gap time is the smallest number ∆ such that:
if distance between the start of consecutive instances is at least ∆ => conflict free
47
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
Enabling spatial reuse• Minimum gap time is the smallest number ∆ such that:
if distance between the start of consecutive instances is at least ∆ => conflict free
47
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
Δ = 6
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
Enabling spatial reuse• Minimum gap time is the smallest number ∆ such that:
if distance between the start of consecutive instances is at least ∆ => conflict free
47
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
Δ = 50 1 2 3 4 5 6
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Δ = 40 1 2 3 4 5 6
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
Enabling spatial reuse• Minimum gap time is the smallest number ∆ such that:
if distance between the start of consecutive instances is at least ∆ => conflict free
47
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Real-time analysis for sensor networks
Real-‐-me analysis for WSN under realis-c interference and communica-on models
Real-‐-me systems WSN• processors • wireless channels
• reliable communication • lossy communication
• closed systems • dynamic systems
48
Mapping query model to the task model
tasks queries
jobs are released periodically query instances are released periodically
jobs of a task share the same code query instances share the same plan = sequence of transmissions
bounded execution time plan length (?)
Periodic task model
WSN query model
SELECT acceleration FROM sensorsSAMPLE RATE 10HzDEADLINE 0.1s
49
WIISARD
51
Emergency response systems• Large scale events: accidents, quakes, terrorism
• numerous victims strain the response system
• ``Fed-ex`` for people• triage, minor treatments, prioritized transport
• Today’s approach• paper tags indicate triage status
• communication over noisy radios
• ➡ labor intensive, error-prone
• WIISARD: RFID tags + phones
Ensuring reliability during disasters• Goal: deliver patient data to all first responders
• Challenges• numerous mobile users
• dynamic wireless environments: interference + obstacles
• limited coverage ➡ frequent disconnections
• Initial approach: client server architecture + routing
• Insight: dispense with the creation of routes
• peer-to-peer architecture ➡ tolerates disconnections
• gossip-based dissemination protocol ➡ relies on local state
52
RADIO MAPPING
Radio mapping• Challenge:
• signals affect by: distance, antenna orientation, objects, multi-path
• relative impact of each factor unknown for 802.15.4
• Insights: • trade-off between model complexity and measurement effort
• impact of walls more important than antenna orientation or multi-path
• Our approach:• take advantage of readily available floor plans
• automatically classify walls into a small number of classes
• use expectation maximization to fit parameters
• train multiple models with varying number of classes
• select the best model using cross-validation techniques
54
Example coverage map
• Visible impact of walls on predicted coverage area
• Low false negative/false positive rates
1
1
1
1
1
1
1 1
1
1
1
Coverage using wall!class model (Jolley)
correct predic-ons
fp: exis-ng coverage, predicted no coverage
fn: no coverage, predicted coverage
55
Example coverage map
• Visible impact of walls on predicted coverage area
• Low false negative/false positive rates
1
1
1
1
1
1
1 1
1
1
1
Coverage using wall!class model (Jolley)
correct predic-ons
fp: exis-ng coverage, predicted no coverage
fn: no coverage, predicted coverage
55
O. Chipara, G. Hackmann, C. Lu, W. D. Smart, and G.-C. Roman. Practical Modeling and Prediction of Radio Coverage of Indoor Sensor Networks. IPSN 2010