2014 IEEE 11th International Conference on Mobile Ad Hoc and Sensor Systems
Methods for Node Localization in Wireless Sensor
Networks
Ronald Beaubrun
Department of Computer Science and Software Engineering
Universit LAVAL
Quebec, Canada
Email: ronald.beaubrun@ift.ulaval.ca
AbstractThis paper presents a brief review of the most
important methods for node localization in Wireless Sensor
Network (WSN). Among them are: Ad hoc Positioning System
(APS), Anchor-Free Localization (AFL) and MoteTrack. Such
methods may achieve good accuracy at the cost of extra
hardware which needs to be present at each network node.
Keywords Ad hoc Positioning; Anchor-Free Localization;
localization; MoteTrack; Wireless Sensor Network (WSN)
I. INTRODUCTION
The performance of Wireless Sensor Network (WSN)
applications requires that each node knows its location
precisely. In this context, node localization in a WSN
constitutes an active field of research, as many solutions were
proposed [1], [2]. These solutions can be grouped into several
categories, depending on the applications, the assumptions
made, and the resources availability. This paper outlines the
most important methods for node localization in WSN. It is
organized as follows. Section II categorizes such methods.
Sections III, IV and V present Ad hoc Positioning System
(APS), Anchor-Free Localization (AFL) and MoteTrack
respectively, whereas Section VI gives some concluding
remarks.
II. CATEGORIZATION
A number of algorithms, called anchor-based algorithms
[1], [2] rely on the presence of nodes which know their precise
position before the localization algorithm starts. Those nodes
are called anchors. The presence of anchors enables to decrease
the computational complexity of calculation, and allows to
obtain the coordinates which are in accordance with some
global coordinate system. At the same time, anchor
maintenance and deployment in some situations are not
possible. So, another set of algorithms, called anchor-free
algorithms [3], attempt to find the node position when no
anchor is available.
Anchor-based algorithms can be further subdivided into
two groups: single-hop and multi-hop algorithms. Single-hop
algorithms assume that every non-anchor node of the WSN at
any moment can directly communicate with enough anchors to
localize itself [4]. In practice, it means, either that anchor nodes
have more powerful transmitters to cover the whole network,
or there is sufficient density of anchor nodes in the WSN
978-1-4799-6036-1/14 $31.00 2014 IEEE 521
DOI 10.1109/MASS.2014.114
deployment. In multi-hop algorithms, position information is
propagated via the network, and non-anchor nodes also use
position information from their non-anchor neighbors in order
to localize themselves [5]. Single-hop algorithms generally
require networks with more connectivity, whereas multi-hop
algorithms support more sparse networks at the cost of
decreased precision.
Other algorithms assume that the network nodes are able to
estimate or measure the distance to each other [2], [11]. These
algorithms are called range-based algorithms. Explicit distance
measuring allows to achieve greater precision of localization.
This comes with the price that additional hardware is often
needed to estimate the range. Range-based algorithms can be
further subdivided into classes, based on which method of
range measurement is used. Range-free algorithms try to rely
on other sources of information for positioning [1].
Centralized algorithms use network nodes to collect data
for localization computation, which runs on a central node. In
distributed algorithms, no central node exists, as all nodes
collaborate to localize each other. Having a central node in a
system enables to overcome resource limitation of the sensor
nodes, so that more computationally demanding algorithms can
be used. At the same time, a single central node introduces a
point of failure for the whole system, while reducing the
scalability of the system. For large networks, a central node
means much communication overhead, increasing latency, and
demand for more battery power.
III. AD HOC POSITIONING
The Ad hoc Positioning System (APS), proposed by
Niculescu et al. [6], is an anchor-based, multi-hop algorithm
which focuses on the assumption that, at the beginning of the
localization, only a limited number of anchors is available, and
no non-anchor node can receive beacons from the others.
Immediate neighbors of the anchors determine their distance to
the anchors and to their neighbors. Once a node obtains a range
estimate to more than 3 anchors, it can determine its position
and becomes an anchor. Thus, the location estimate is
propagated from the anchors to the middle of the network.
Three propagation methods are proposed: DV-hop, DV-
distance and Euclidian. The DV-hop propagation method is a
basic scheme which consists of three stages. First, all nodes
obtain the hop-count distance to the anchors by direct
propagation. Each node maintains a table Xi, Yi, hi, where (Xi,
Yi) are coordinates of anchor i and hi is a hop-count. The nodes
exchange updates only with their neighbors. Second, each
anchor collects the hop-count to other anchors, estimates the
average length of the hop, and sends this information as
correction to the nodes in its neighborhood. Third, when
receiving the correction, a non-anchor node may estimate the
distance to the anchor.
The DV-distance propagation method is similar to the DV-
hop with the difference that the distance between neighboring
nodes is measured using some ranging method. Finally, the
Euclidean propagation method is trying to calculate true
Euclidean distance to an anchor. For that, a non-anchor node A
needs to have at least two neighbors B and C which estimate
their distances to an anchor L. A also has measured estimates
of distances for AB, AC, and BC, so there is the condition that:
either B and C, besides being neighbors of A, are neighbors of
each other, or A knows distance BC, from being able to map
all its neighbors in a local coordinate system. In any case, for
the quadrilateral ABCL, all the sides are known, and one of the
diagonals, BC, is also known. This allows node A to compute
the second diagonal AL, which in fact is the Euclidean distance
from A to anchor L.
The APS method was implemented, and deployed with 49
nodes on a paved surface over an area of 13 by 13 meters.
There were 4 anchors. A median location error of about 47 cm
was reported.
IV. ANCHOR-FREE LOCALIZATION
Anchor-Free Localization (AFL) was proposed by
Priyantha et al. [7]. The algorithm is fully distributed, and
consists of two phases. The first phase generates the fold-
freedom representation of the distance graph. The second
phase uses a force-based relaxation procedure to find precise
locations. To measure the performance of the solution, a global
error ratio (GER) is proposed. Simulation results report that the
GER is less than 0.0012 if the ranging error does not exceed
7%. It looks like the localization precision depends on the
network connectivity more than the ranging precision. For
example, if R is the communication range, the maximum error
between any two unconnected nodes is up to 0.8 R if the
connectivity is 13, and about 3R if the connectivity is 5.
V. MOTETRACK
MoteTrack is an anchor-based, range-free distributed
algorithm which uses received signal strength indicator (RSSI)
signatures for location fingerprinting [8]. In the MoteTrack
algorithm, anchor nodes broadcast beacon messages at various
transmission power levels. Each beacon message has the form
(sourceID, powerLevel), where sourceID carries the ID of the
beacon node who sent it, and powerLevel contains the
transmission power level used to broadcast the message. Each
non-anchor node that wants to determine its location
aggregates beacon messages received over some time interval
into a signature, which is then compared with a reference
signature with a known location. Each beacon node stores a
subset of all reference signatures.
522
The MoteTrack algorithm has two phases: an offline
collection of reference signatures and an online location
estimation. The reference signature database is built manually,
and consists of a set of signature tuples in the form (sourceID,
powerLevel, meanRSSI), where sourceID is the anchor node
ID, powerLevel is the transmission power level of the beacon
message, and meanRSSI is the mean RSSI of a set of beacon
messages received over some time interval. The algorithm is
designed to gracefully handle incomplete data and failed nodes.
MoteTrack was implemented with Mica2 nodes using
TinyOS operating system, and deployed over one floor of a
building, measuring roughly 1742 m2. The installation
consisted of 20 anchor nodes. A total of 482 reference
signatures were collected. Each signature was collected for 1
minute, during which time every anchor node transmitted at a
rate of 4 Hz, each cycling through 7 transmission power levels.
It was noted that collecting references for several seconds for
each signature may be sufficient. Also, the accuracy within 3 m
was reported for 80% of tests measures.
VI. CONCLUSION
In this paper, the most important solutions for the node
localization problem in WSN are reviewed, as several
examples of implemented WSN localization algorithms are
discussed. Some methods are known to achieve good accuracy.
But, they are expensive in terms of extra hardware which needs
to be present at each network node. Other methods are more
accessible, as no additional hardware is needed. But, the
measured distance is known to be less precise.
REFERENCES
[1] C. Alippi, and G. Vanini. A RSSI-Based and Calibrated Centralized
Localization Technique for Wireless Sensor Networks, In Fourth
Annual IEEE International Conference on Pervasive Computing and
Communications Workshops, pages 301-305, 13-17 March 2006.
[2] M. Minami, Y. Fukuju, K. Hirasawa, S. Yokoyama, M. Mizumachi, H.
Morikawa, and T. Aoyama, DOLPHIN: A Practical Approach for
Implementing a Fully Distributed Indoor Ultrasonic Positioning
System, In volume 3205 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages
347-365. Springer, 2004.
[3] M. Broxton, J. Lifton, and J. A. Paradiso, Localization on the Pushpin
Computing Sensor Network Using Spectral Graph Drawing and Mesh
Relaxation, SIGMOBILE Mob. Comput. Commun. Rev., 10(1): 112,
2006.
[4] K. Wu, C. Liu, and V. King, Very Low Cost Sensor Localization for
Hostile Environments, In IEEE International Conference on
Communications, Vol. 5, pages 3197-3201, 16-20 May 2005.
[5] A. Savvides, W. Garber, S. Adlakha, R. L. Moses, and M. B. Srivastava,
On the Error Characteristics of Multihop Node Localization in Ad-Hoc
Sensor Networks, In volume 2634 of Lecture Notes in Computer
Science, pages 317-332, Springer, 2003.
[6] D. Niculescu, and B. Nath, DV Based Positioning in Ad Hoc
Networks, Telecommunication Systems, Vol. 22, pp. 267-280, 2003.
[7] N. B. Priyantha, H. Balakrishnan, E. Demaine, and S. Teller. Anchor-
Free Distributed Localization in Sensor Networks. Technical Report TR-
892, MIT LCS, April 2003.
[8] K. Lorincz, and M. Welsh, Motetrack: A Robust, Decentralized
Approach to RF-Based Location Tracking, In volume 3479 of Lecture
Notes in Computer Science, pages 63-82, Springer, 2005.