Abstract
Barrier Coverage is an important sensor deployment issue in many industrial, consumer and military applications.The barrier coverage in bistatic radar sensor networks has attracted many researchers recently. The Bistatic Radars (BR) consist of radar signal transmitters and radar signal receivers. The effective detection area of bistatic radar is a Cassini oval area that determined by the distance between transmitter and receiver and the predefined detecting SNR threshold. Many existing works on bistatic radar barrier coverage mainly focus on homogeneous radar sensor networks. However, cooperation among different types or different physical parameters of sensors is necessary in many practical application scenarios. In this paper, we study the optimal deployment problem in heterogeneous bistatic radar networks.The object is how to maximize the detection ability of bistatic radar barrier with given numbers of radar sensors and barrier’s length. Firstly, we investigate the optimal placement strategy of single transmitter and multiple receivers, and propose the patterns of aggregate deployment. Then we study the optimal deployment of heterogeneous transmitters and receivers and introduce the optimal placement sequences of heterogeneous transmitters and receivers. Finally, we design an efficient greedy algorithm, which realize optimal barrier deployment of M heterogeneous transmitters and N receivers on a L length boundary, and maximizing the detection ability of the barrier. We theoretically proved that the placement sequence of the algorithm construction is optimal deployment solution in heterogeneous bistatic radar sensors barrier. And we validate the algorithm effectiveness through comprehensive simulation experiments.


















Similar content being viewed by others
References
Ammari, H.M.: A Unified Framework for k -coverage and Data Collection in Heterogeneous Wireless Sensor Networks. Academic Press Inc., Cambridge (2016)
Ammari, H.M., Das, S.K.: Centralized and clustered k-coverage protocols for wireless sensor networks. IEEE Trans. Comput. 61(1), 118–133 (2011)
Chang, H.Y., Kao, L., Chang, K.P., Chen, C.: Fault-tolerance and minimum cost placement of bistatic radar sensors for belt barrier coverage. In: International Conference on Network and Information Systems for Computers, pp. 1–7 (2017)
Chen, A., Kumar, S., Lai, T.H.: Local barrier coverage in wireless sensor networks. IEEE Trans. Mob. Comput. 9(4), 491–504 (2010)
Chen, J., Wang, B., Liu, W.: Constructing Perimeter Barrier Coverage with Bistatic Radar Sensors. Academic Press Ltd., Cambridge (2015)
Cheng, C.F., Tsai, K.T.: Distributed barrier coverage in wireless visual sensor networks with β-qom. IEEE Sensors J. 12(6), 1726–1735 (2012)
Dutta, P.K., Arora, A.K., Bibyk, S.B.: Towards radar-enabled sensor networks. In: International Conference on Information Processing in Sensor Networks, pp. 467–474 (2006)
Gong, X., Zhang, J., Cochran, D.: When target motion matters:, Doppler coverage in radar sensor networks. In: IEEE INFOCOM, pp. 1169–1177 (2013)
Gong, X., Zhang, J., Cochran, D., Xing, K.: Barrier coverage in bistatic radar sensor networks:cassini oval sensing and optimal placement. In: Fourteenth ACM International Symposium on Mobile Ad Hoc NETWORKING and Computing, pp. 49–58 (2013)
Gong, X., Zhang, J., Cochran, D., Xing, K.: Optimal placement for barrier coverage in bistatic radar sensor networks. IEEE/ACM Trans. Networking 24 (1), 259–271 (2016)
Karatas, M.: Optimal deployment of heterogeneous sensor networks for a hybrid point and barrier coverage application. Computer Networks 132, 129–144 (2018)
Kim, H., Ben-Othman, J.: Heterbar: Construction of heterogeneous reinforced barrier in wireless sensor networks. IEEE Commun. Lett. PP(99), 1–1 (2017)
Kim, H., Kim, D., Li, D., Kwon, S.S., Tokuta, A.O., Cobb, J.A.: Maximum lifetime dependable barrier-coverage in wireless sensor networks. Ad Hoc Netw. 36(P1), 296–307 (2016)
Kumar, S., Lai, T.H., Arora, A.: Barrier Coverage with Wireless Sensors. Springer, New York (2007)
Kusy, B., Ledeczi, A., Koutsoukos, X.: Tracking mobile nodes using rf doppler shifts. In: International Conference on Embedded Networked Sensor Systems, SENSYS 2007, pp. 29–42. Sydney, Nsw, Australia (2007)
Lee, J.J., Krishnamachari, B., Kuo, C.C.J.: Impact of heterogeneous deployment on lifetime sensing coverage in sensor networks. In: 2004 First IEEE Communications Society Conference on Sensor and Ad Hoc Communications and Networks, 2004 IEEE SECON 2004, pp. 367–376 (2004)
Li, L., Zhang, B., Shen, X., Zheng, J., Yao, Z.: A study on the weak barrier coverage problem in wireless sensor networks. Computer Networks the International Journal of Computer & Telecommunications Networking 55(3), 711–721 (2011)
Lim, J.H.L., Terzis, A.T., Wang, I.J.W.: Tracking a non-cooperative mobile target using low-power pulsed doppler radars. In: Local Computer Networks, pp. 913–920 (2010)
Liu, B., Dousse, O., Wang, J., Saipulla, A.: Strong barrier coverage of wireless sensor networks. In: ACM Interational Symposium on Mobile Ad Hoc NETWORKING and Computing, MOBIHOC 2008, pp. 411–420. Hong Kong, China (2008)
Liu, L., Zhang, X., Ma, H.: Exposure-path prevention in directional sensor networks using sector model based percolation. In: IEEE International Conference on Communications, pp. 1–5 (2009)
Lu, Z., Li, W.W., Pan, M.: Maximum lifetime scheduling for target coverage and data collection in wireless sensor networks. IEEE Trans. Veh. Technol. 64(2), 714–727 (2015)
Nguyen, H.T.: State-of-the-art in mac protocols for underwater acoustics sensor networks. In: Emerging Directions in Embedded and Ubiquitous Computing, EUC 2007 Workshops: TRUST, WSOC, NCUS, UUWSN, USN, ESO, and SECUBIQ, Taipei, Taiwan, December 17-20, 2007, Proceedings, pp. 482–493 (2007)
Rahman, M.O., Razzaque, M.A., Hong, C.S.: Probabilistic sensor deployment in wireless sensor network: A new approach. In: The International Conference on Advanced Communication Technology, pp. 1419–1422 (2007)
Reekie, L., Chow, Y.T., Dakin, J.P.: Optical in-fibre grating high pressure sensor. Electron. Lett. 29(4), 398–399 (1993)
Saipulla, A., Westphal, C., Liu, B., Wang, J.: Barrier coverage with line-based deployed mobile sensors. Ad Hoc Netw. 11(4), 1381–1391 (2013)
Tao, D., Tang, S., Zhang, H., Mao, X., Ma, H.: Strong barrier coverage in directional sensor networks. Comput. Commun. 35(8), 895–905 (2012)
Wang, Y., Wang, X., Xie, B., Wang, D., Agrawal, D.P.: Intrusion detection in homogeneous and heterogeneous wireless sensor networks. IEEE Trans. Mob. Comput. 7(6), 698–711 (2008)
Wang, B., Xu, H., Liu, W., Liang, H.: A novel node placement for long belt coverage in wireless networks. IEEE Trans. Comput. 62(12), 2341–2353 (2013)
Wang, Z., Liao, J., Cao, Q., Qi, H., Wang, Z.: Achieving k-barrier coverage in hybrid directional sensor networks. IEEE Trans. Mob. Comput. 13(7), 1443–1455 (2014)
Wang, B., Chen, J., Liu, W., Yang, L.T.: Minimum cost placement of bistatic radar sensors for belt barrier coverage. IEEE Trans. Comput. 65(2), 577–588 (2016)
Yildiz, E., Akkaya, K., Sisikoglu, E., Sir, M.Y.: Optimal camera placement for providing angular coverage in wireless video sensor networks. IEEE Trans. Comput. 63(7), 1812–1825 (2014)
Zorbas, D., Razafindralambo, T.: Prolonging network lifetime under probabilistic target coverage in wireless mobile sensor networks. Comput. Commun. 36(9), 1039–1053 (2013)
Acknowledgements
This work is supported by the Key Science-Technology Program of Zhejiang Province, China (2017C01065) and the National Natural Science Foundation of China (61370087).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Publisher’s note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
This article belongs to the Topical Collection: Special Issue on Smart Computing and Cyber Technology for Cyberization
Guest Editors: Xiaokang Zhou, Flavia C. Delicato, Kevin Wang, and Runhe Huang
Appendix
Appendix
Proof
(Proof 1) When a placement sequence consist of one transmitter and one receiver, the coverage length reaches the maximum when the distance between them is \(2\sqrt {{c_{i}}} \).
Let d1 = ∥TiRj∥, we consider three possible cases as follows.
-
Case 1: when \({d_{1}} < 2\sqrt {{c_{i}}} \), the coverage range is presented in Figure 19.
We can divide the range into 3 parts: part \(\overline {A{T_{i}}} \), part \(\overline {{T_{i}}{R_{j}}} \), part \(\overline {{R_{j}}B} \). Let ∥ATi∥ = ∥RjB∥ = x, because of ∥ATi∥ ×∥ARj∥ = ci, then x (x + d1) = ci, so the length of coverage range is \({L_{1}} = \sqrt {{d_{1}^{2}} + 4{c_{i}}} \).
-
Case 2: when \({d_{1}} = 2\sqrt {{c_{i}}} \), the coverage range is presented in Figure 20.
Similar to Case 1, the length of coverage range is \({L_{2}} = \sqrt {{d_{1}^{2}} + 4{c_{i}}} \), then L2 > L1, because of \(d_{1}^{(2)} > d_{1}^{(1)}\).
-
Case 3: when \({d_{1}} > 2\sqrt {{c_{i}}} \), the coverage range is presented in Figure 21.
Because \(d_{1}^{(3)} > d_{1}^{(2)}\), then ∥ATi∥(3) = ∥RjD∥(3) < ∥ATi∥(2) = ∥RjB∥(2), and ∥TiB∥(3) = ∥RjC∥(3) < ∥TiO∥(2) = ∥RjO∥(2), so we get that L3 = 2 (∥ATi∥(3) + ∥TiB∥(3)) < L2 = 2 (∥ATi∥(2) + ∥TiO∥(2)). □
Proof
(Proof 2) Optimal deployment interval when the number of deployed receivers is n = 2, as shown in Figure 22.
As shown in Figure 21, let d1 = ∥T1R1∥, d2 = ∥R1R2∥. When \({d_{1}} = 2\sqrt {{c_{i}}} \) and d2 is the solution of \(\frac {1}{2}{d_{2}} \times \left ({\frac {1}{2}{d_{2}} + {d_{1}}} \right ) = {c_{i}}\), the coverage length of the placement sequence is the longest. It is because the following discussion.
When ∥R1R2∥ < d2, it is shown in Figure 23.
Here, compared with Figure 23, ∥T1D∗∥ < ∥T1D∥1 (the superscript 1 denotes Figure 23), and ∥AT1∥ remains unchanged, therefore the coverage length of the placement sequence becomes shorter.
When ∥R1R2∥ > d2, it is shown in Figure 24.
∥DE∥ < ∥CD∥1 (the superscript 1 denote the Figure 22), so the coverage length turns shorter compared with Figure 22. Therefore, if we deploy two receivers on one side of a transmitter, the coverage length is longest when ∥T1R1∥ = d1 and ∥R1R2∥ = d2. □
Proof
(Proof 3) When a placement sequence consists of one transmitter and n receivers, the coverage length is longest when we deploy the n receivers on both sides of the transmitter equally and the deploy intervals satisfied the optimal deployment intervals.
As shown in Figure 25, we assume that we have two deployment strategies: strategy1 and strategy2.
strategy1: |left1 − right1| ≤ 1, left1 + right1 = n
strategy2: |left2 − right2| > 1, left2 + right2 = n
left denotes the number of receivers that are deployed on the left of the transmitter, and the right denotes the number of receivers that are deployed on the right of the transmitter.
In Proof 2, if we deploy receivers on one side of the transmitter, the coverage length is the longest if the deployment intervals are the optimal deployment intervals. Therefore, we assume that the deployment intervals in strategy1 or strategy2 all satisfy the requirement of the optimal deployment intervals.
For convenience, we assume left1 ≤ right1, left2 ≤ right2, we get left1 > left2, right1 < right2 and left1 − left2 = right2 − right1. The optimal interval array d[] is a decreasing array, we assume.
sum1 = d[left2] + d[left2 + 1] + ... + d[left1]
sum2 = d[right1] + d[right1 + 1] + ... + d[right2]
Therefore, sum1 > sum2, and the range from left2 to right1 is a shared part of both strategy1 and strategy2. So the coverage length obtained from strategy1 is longer than that from strategy2. □
Proof
(Theorem 1) There are two placement sequences, S1 and S2. S1 satisfies the converge deployment and S2 don’t satisfies the converge deployment.
Our proof is reduction ad absurdum. We assume S2 is the optimal placement sequence. Its coverage range covered is the longest. Because S2 doesn’t satisfy the converge deployment, there is at least one transmitter Ti, the deployment sequence with this transmitter (and its receivers set) doesn’t satisfy the optimal interval deployment. However, S1 satisfies the converge deployment, the deployment sequence with this transmitter (and its receivers set) satisfies the optimal interval deployment. We obtain the following expression from section 4. 2, \({\text {cov}} er({~}^{1}S_{{T_{i}}}^{{K_{i}}}) > {\text {cov}} er({~}^{2}S_{{T_{i}}}^{{K_{i}}})\) and \({\text {cov}} er({~}^{1}S_{{T_{j}}}^{{K_{j}}}) > {\text {cov}} er({~}^{2}S_{{T_{j}}}^{{K_{j}}}),j = 1,2,...M{\mathrm { and j}} \ne {\mathrm {i}}\). Ki denotes the number of receivers in Ti’s receivers set. \({~}^{1}S_{i}^{{K_{i}}}\) denotes the placement sequence with Ti and its Ki receivers. Therefore, \({\text {cov}} er({S_{1}}) > {\text {cov}} er({S_{2}})\). S2 is not set up for the optimal placement sequence. □
Proof
(Theorem 2) If there are two placement sequences with the same transmitter parameters of the, and the number of receivers owned by each transmitter is the same. If both placement sequences satisfy the converge deployment, that is to say they have the same basic coverage patterns, therefore their coverage ranges are equal. We give an example to illustrate this conclusion, It is shown in Figure 26.
Both placement sequences are composed of the same three basic coverage patterns. But the arrangement sequences of these three basic coverage patterns are different, Therefore they are two different placement sequences. But the coverage range covered by each basic coverage patterns of the two placement sequences correspond are equal. The coverage range covered by these two placement sequences are equal. □
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Xu, X., Zhao, C., Jiang, Z. et al. Optimal placement of barrier coverage in heterogeneous bistatic radar sensor networks. World Wide Web 23, 1361–1380 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11280-019-00699-5
Received:
Revised:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11280-019-00699-5