On the vulnerabilities of voronoi-based approaches to mobile sensor deployment

Mobile sensor networks are the most promising solution to cover an Area of Interest (AoI) in safety critical scenarios. Mobile devices can coordinate with each other according to a distributed deployment algorithm, without resorting to human supervision for device positioning and network configuration. In this paper, we focus on the vulnerabilities of the deployment algorithms based on Voronoi diagrams to coordinate mobile sensors and guide their movements. We give a geometric characterization of possible attack configurations, proving that a simple attack consisting of a barrier of few compromised sensors can severely reduce network coverage. On the basis of the above characterization, we propose two new secure deployment algorithms, named SecureVor and Secure Swap Deployment (SSD). These algorithms allow a sensor to detect compromised nodes by analyzing their movements, under different and complementary operative settings. We show that the proposed algorithms are effective in defeating a barrier attack, and both have guaranteed termination. We perform extensive simulations to study the performance of the two algorithms and compare them with the original approach. Results show that SecureVor and SSD have better robustness and flexibility and excellent coverage capabilities and deployment time, even in the presence of an attac

Coverage Protocols for Wireless Sensor Networks: Review and Future Directions

The coverage problem in wireless sensor networks (WSNs) can be generally defined as a measure of how effectively a network field is monitored by its sensor nodes. This problem has attracted a lot of interest over the years and as a result, many coverage protocols were proposed. In this survey, we first propose a taxonomy for classifying coverage protocols in WSNs. Then, we classify the coverage protocols into three categories (i.e. coverage aware deployment protocols, sleep scheduling protocols for flat networks, and cluster-based sleep scheduling protocols) based on the network stage where the coverage is optimized. For each category, relevant protocols are thoroughly reviewed and classified based on the adopted coverage techniques. Finally, we discuss open issues (and recommend future directions to resolve them) associated with the design of realistic coverage protocols. Issues such as realistic sensing models, realistic energy consumption models, realistic connectivity models and sensor localization are covered

Movement-Efficient Sensor Deployment in Wireless Sensor Networks With Limited Communication Range.

We study a mobile wireless sensor network (MWSN) consisting of multiple mobile sensors or robots. Three key factors in MWSNs, sensing quality, energy consumption, and connectivity, have attracted plenty of attention, but the interaction of these factors is not well studied. To take all the three factors into consideration, we model the sensor deployment problem as a constrained source coding problem. %, which can be applied to different coverage tasks, such as area coverage, target coverage, and barrier coverage. Our goal is to find an optimal sensor deployment (or relocation) to optimize the sensing quality with a limited communication range and a specific network lifetime constraint. We derive necessary conditions for the optimal sensor deployment in both homogeneous and heterogeneous MWSNs. According to our derivation, some sensors are idle in the optimal deployment of heterogeneous MWSNs. Using these necessary conditions, we design both centralized and distributed algorithms to provide a flexible and explicit trade-off between sensing uncertainty and network lifetime. The proposed algorithms are successfully extended to more applications, such as area coverage and target coverage, via properly selected density functions. Simulation results show that our algorithms outperform the existing relocation algorithms

Movement-efficient Sensor Deployment in Wireless Sensor Networks

We study a mobile wireless sensor network (MWSN) consisting of multiple mobile sensors or robots. Two key issues in MWSNs - energy consumption, which is dominated by sensor movement, and sensing coverage - have attracted plenty of attention, but the interaction of these issues is not well studied. To take both sensing coverage and movement energy consumption into consideration, we model the sensor deployment problem as a constrained source coding problem. %, which can be applied to different coverage tasks, such as area coverage, target coverage, and barrier coverage. Our goal is to find an optimal sensor deployment to maximize the sensing coverage with specific energy constraints. We derive necessary conditions to the optimal sensor deployment with (i) total energy constraint and (ii) network lifetime constraint. Using these necessary conditions, we design Lloyd-like algorithms to provide a trade-off between sensing coverage and energy consumption. Simulation results show that our algorithms outperform the existing relocation algorithms.Comment: 18 pages, 10 figure

Algorithms on Minimizing the Maximum Sensor Movement for Barrier Coverage of a Linear Domain

In this paper, we study the problem of moving $n$ sensors on a line to form a barrier coverage of a specified segment of the line such that the maximum moving distance of the sensors is minimized. Previously, it was an open question whether this problem on sensors with arbitrary sensing ranges is solvable in polynomial time. We settle this open question positively by giving an $O(n^2 \log n)$ time algorithm. For the special case when all sensors have the same-size sensing range, the previously best solution takes $O(n^2)$ time. We present an $O(n \log n)$ time algorithm for this case; further, if all sensors are initially located on the coverage segment, our algorithm takes $O(n)$ time. Also, we extend our techniques to the cycle version of the problem where the barrier coverage is for a simple cycle and the sensors are allowed to move only along the cycle. For sensors with the same-size sensing range, we solve the cycle version in $O(n)$ time, improving the previously best $O(n^2)$ time solution.Comment: This version corrected an error in the proof of Lemma 2 in the previous version and the version published in DCG 2013. Lemma 2 is for proving the correctness of an algorithm (see the footnote of Page 9 for why the previous proof is incorrect). Everything else of the paper does not change. All algorithms in the paper are exactly the same as before and their time complexities do not change eithe