Coverage and connectivity in three-dimensional networks

ABSTRACT

Although most wireless terrestrial networks are based on two-dimensional (2D) design, in reality, such networks operate in three-dimensions (3D). Since most often the size (i.e., the length and the width) of such terrestrial networks is significantly larger than the differences in the third dimension (i.e., the height) of the nodes, the 2D assumption is somewhat justified and usually it does not lead to major inaccuracies. However, in some environments, this is not the case; the underwater, atmospheric, or space communications being such apparent examples. In fact, recent interest in underwater acoustic ad hoc and sensor networks hints at the need to understand how to design networks in 3D. Unfortunately, the design of 3D networks is surprisingly more difficult than the design of 2D networks. For example, proofs of Kelvin's conjecture and Kepler's conjecture required centuries of research to achieve breakthroughs, whereas their 2D counterparts are trivial to solve. In this paper, we consider the coverage and connectivity issues of 3D networks, where the goal is to find a node placement strategy with 100% sensing coverage of a 3D space, while minimizing the number of nodes required for surveillance. Our results indicate that the use of the Voronoi tessellation of 3D space to create truncated octahedral cells results in the best strategy. In this truncated octahedron placement strategy, the transmission range must be at least 1.7889 times the sensing range in order to maintain connectivity among nodes. If the transmission range is between 1.4142 and 1.7889 times the sensing range, then a hexagonal prism placement strategy or a rhombic dodecahedron placement strategy should be used. Although the required number of nodes in the hexagonal prism and the rhombic dodecahedron placement strategies is the same, this number is 43.25% higher than the number of nodes required by the truncated octahedron placement strategy. We verify by simulation that our placement strategies indeed guarantee ubiquitous coverage. We believe that our approach and our results presented in this paper could be used for extending the processes of 2D network design to 3D networks.

References

1. Akyildiz, I.F., Pompili, D., Melodia, T., Underwater Acoustic Sensor Networks: Research Challenges, Ad Hoc Networks Journal, (Elsevier), March 2005.
2. Aristotle, On the Heaven, Vol. 3, Chapt. 8, 350BC.
3. S. Basagni, I. Chlamtac, V. R. Syrotiuk, and B. A. Woodward, A distance routing effect algorithm for mobility (DREAM), in Proceedings of the ACM/IEEE International Conference on Mobile Computing and Networking (Mobicom), 1998, pp.76--84.
4. P. Bose, P. Morin, I. Stojmenovic, and J. Urrutia. Routing with guaranteed delivery in ad hoc wireless networks. Wireless Networks, 7(6):609--616, 2001.
5. K. Chakrabarty, S. S. Iyengar, H. Qi, and E. Cho. Grid coverage for surveillance and target location in distributed sensor networks. IEEE Transactions on Computers, 51(12):1448--1453, December 2002.
6. J. Carle, J.F. Myoupo, and D. Semé. A Basis for 3-D Cellular Networks. In Proc. of the 15th International Conference on Information Networking, 2001.
7. T. Couqueur, V. Phipatanasuphorn, P. Ramanathan, and K. K. Saluja. Sensor deployment strategy for target detection. In Proceeding of The First ACM International Workshop on Wireless Sensor Networks and Applications, pages 169--177, Sep 2002.
8. Catherine Decayeux and David Semé: A New Model for 3-D Cellular Mobile Networks, ISPDC/HeteroPar 2004.
9. Gardner, M. The Sixth Book of Mathematical Games from Scientific American, Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 1984.
10. Hales, T. C. A Proof of the Kepler Conjecture. Ann. Math. 162, 1065--1185, 2005
11. Hilbert, D. and Cohn-Vossen, S. Geometry and the Imagination. New York: Chelsea, 1999.
12. John Heidemann, Wei Ye, Jack Wills, Affan Syed, and Yuan Li. Research Challenges and Applications for Underwater Sensor Networking, IEEE Wireless Communications and Networking Conference, p. to appear. Las Vegas, Nevada, USA, IEEE. April, 2006.
13. Johnson, N. W. Uniform Polytopes. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press, 2000.
14. R. Jain, A. Puri, and R. Sengupta, Geographical routing using partial information for wireless ad hoc networks, IEEE Personal Communications, pp. 48--57, Feb. 2001.
15. Jiejun Kong, Jun-hong Cui, Dapeng Wu, Mario Gerla, Building Underwater Ad-hoc Networks and Sensor Networks for Large Scale Real-time Aquatic Applications, IEEE Military Communications Conference (MILCOM'05), October 17--20, 2005. Atlantic City, New Jersey, USA.
16. B. Karp and H. T. Kung, GPSR: Greedy perimeter stateless routing for wireless networks, ACM/IEEE International Conference on Mobile Computing and Networking (Mobicom), 2000, pp. 243--254.
17. Michal Křížek, Superconvergence phenomena on three-dimensional meshes, International Journal of Numerical Analysis and Modeling. Vol. 2, No. 1, 2005, pp. 43--56.
18. Y. Ko and N. H. Vaidya, Location-aided routing (LAR) in mobile ad hoc networks, ACM/IEEE International Conference on Mobile Computing and Networking (Mobicom), 1998, pp.66--75.
19. D. Li, K. Wong, Y. H. Hu, and A. Sayeed. Detection, classification and tracking of targets in distributed sensor networks, IEEE Signal Processing Magazine, 19(2), Mar. 2002.
20. N. Lynch, Distributed Algorithms, Morgan Kaufmann Publishers, Wonderland, 1996.
21. S. Meguerdichian, F. Koushanfar, M. Potkonjak, and M. B. Srivastava. Coverage problems in wireless ad-hoc sensor networks. INFOCOM'01, pages 1380--1387, 2001.
22. Rappaport, T. S., Wireless Communications: Principles and Practice, Prentice Hall, 2002.
23. Steinhaus, Hugo. Mathematical Snapshots, 3rd edition, Oxford University Press, 1969.
24. D. Tian and N. D. Georganas, A coverage-preserved node scheduling scheme for large wireless sensor networks. In Proceedings of First International Workshop on Wireless Sensor Networks and Applications (WSNA'02), pages 169--177, Atlanta, USA, Sep 2002.
25. Thomson, Sir William (Lord Kelvin), On the division of space with minimum partition area. Philosophical Magazine, 24 (1887)503--514. Web: http://zapatopi.net/kelvin/papers/on_the_division_of_space.html
26. P. Varshney. Distributed Detection and Data Fusion. Spinger-Verlag, New York, NY, 1996.
27. I. Vasilescu, K. Kotay, D. Rus, M. Dunbabin and P. Corke, Data Collection, Storage, and Retrieval with an Underwater Sensor Network, SenSys'05, November 2-4, 2005, San Diego, California, USA.
28. Weaire, D. The Kelvin Problem: Foam Structures of Minimal Surface Area. London: Taylor and Francis, 1996.
29. Wells, D. The Penguin Dictionary of Curious and Interesting Geometry, London: Penguin, 1991.
30. Weyl, H. Symmetry. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1952.
31. Weaire, D. and Phelan, R. A Counter-Example to Kelvin's Conjecture on Minimal Surfaces. Philosophical Magazine Letters, 69, 107--110, 1994
32. X. Wang, G. Xing, Y. Zhang, C. Lu, R. Pless, and C. D. Gill. Integrated coverage and connectivity configuration in wireless sensor networks. Sensys, 2003.
33. G. Xing, C. Lu, R. Pless, and Q. Huang, On Greedy Geographic Routing Algorithms in Sensing-Covered Networks, In Proc. of MobiHoc'04, Tokyo, Japan, May 2004.
34. T. Yan, T. He, and J. A. Stankovic, Differentiated surveillance for sensor networks., SenSys '03: Proceedings of the 1st international conference on Embedded networked sensor systems, 2003.
35. F. Ye, G. Zhong, S. Lu, and L. Zhang, Peas: A robust energy conserving protocol for long-lived sensor networks, 23rd International Conference on Distributed Computing Systems (ICDCS'03), pages 169--177, May 2003.
36. H. Zhang and J. C. Hou, Maintaining sensing coverage and connectivity in large sensor networks, Wireless Ad Hoc and Sensor Networks: An International Journal, Vol. 1, No. 1-2, pp. 89--123, January 2005.

Index Terms

• Networks

  • Network properties

    • Network structure

  • Network types

    • Mobile networks

    • Wireless access networks