Experiences from Two Sensor Network Deployments — Self-monitoring and Self-configuration Keys to Success

  • Niclas Finne
  • Joakim Eriksson
  • Adam Dunkels
  • Thiemo Voigt
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 5031)


Despite sensor network protocols being self-configuring, sensor network deployments continue to fail. We report our experience from two recently deployed IP-based multi-hop sensor networks: one in-door surveillance network in a factory complex and a combined out-door and in-door surveillance network. Our experiences highlight that adaptive protocols alone are not sufficient, but that an approach to self-monitoring and self-configuration that covers more aspects than protocol adaptation is needed. Based on our experiences, we design and implement an architecture for self-monitoring of sensor nodes. We show that the self-monitoring architecture detects and prevents the problems with false alarms encountered in our deployments. The architecture also detects software bugs by monitoring actual and expected duty-cycle of key components of the sensor node. We show that the energy-monitoring architecture detects bugs that cause the radio chip to be active longer than expected.


Sensor Network Sensor Node Wireless Sensor Network Duty Cycle Relay Node 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Buettner, M., Yee, G.V., Anderson, E., Han, R.: X-mac: a short preamble mac protocol for duty-cycled wireless sensor networks. In: ACM SenSys (November 2006)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Dinh, T.L., Hu, W., Sikka, P., Corke, P., Overs, L., Brosnan, S.: Design and Deployment of a Remote Robust Sensor Network: Experiences from an Outdoor Water Quality Monitoring Network. IEEE Congf. on Local Computer Networks, 799–806 (2007)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Dunkels, A.: Full TCP/IP for 8-bit architectures. In: Proceedings of The First International Conference on Mobile Systems, Applications, and Services (MOBISYS 2003), San Francisco, California (May 2003)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Dunkels, A., Grönvall, B., Voigt, T.: Contiki - a lightweight and flexible operating system for tiny networked sensors. In: Proceedings of the First IEEE Workshop on Embedded Networked Sensors (IEEE Emnets 2004), Tampa, Florida, USA (November 2004)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Dunkels, A., Österlind, F., Tsiftes, N., He, Z.: Software-based on-line energy estimation for sensor nodes. In: EmNets 2007: Proceedings of the 4th workshop on Embedded networked sensors, pp. 28–32 (2007)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Arora, A., et al.: A line in the sand: a wireless sensor network for target detection, classification, and tracking. Computer Networks 46(5), 605–634 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Krishnamurthy, L., Adler, R., Buonadonna, P., Chhabra, J., Flanigan, M., Kushalnagar, N., Nachman, L., Yarvis, M.: Design and deployment of industrial sensor networks: experiences from a semiconductor plant in the north sea. In: ACM SenSys, pp. 64–75 (2005)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Langendoen, K.G., Baggio, A., Visser, O.W.: Murphy loves potatoes: Experiences from a pilot sensor network deployment in precision agriculture. In: 14th Int. Workshop on Parallel and Distributed Real-Time Systems (WPDRTS) (April 2006)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Mainwaring, A., Polastre, J., Szewczyk, R., Culler, D., Anderson, J.: Wireless sensor networks for habitat monitoring. In: First ACM Workshop on Wireless Sensor Networks and Applications (WSNA 2002), Atlanta, GA, USA (September 2002)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Marron, P.J., Lachenmann, A., Minder, D., Hahner, J., Sauter, R., Rothermel, K.: TinyCubus: a flexible and adaptive framework sensor networks. In: EWSN 2005, Istanbul, Turkey (2005)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Padhy, P., Martinez, K.K., Riddoch, A., Ong, H., Hart, J.: Glacial environment monitoring using sensor networks. In: Proc. of the Workshop on Real-World Wireless Sensor Networks (REALWSN 2005), Stockholm, Sweden (June 2005)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Rhee, I., Warrier, A., Aia, M., Min, J.: Z-MAC: a hybrid MAC for wireless sensor networks. ACM SenSys, 90–101 (2005)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Römer, K., Mattern, F.: The design space of wireless sensor networks. IEEE Wireless Communications 11(6), 54–61 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Schiller, J., Ritter, H., Liers, A., Voigt, T.: Scatterweb - low power nodes and energy aware routing. In: Proceedings of Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, Hawaii, USA (January 2005)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Werner-Allen, G., Lorincz, K., Johnson, J., Lees, J., Welsh, M.: Fidelity and yield in a volcano monitoring sensor network. In: Symposium on Operating Systems Design and Implementation (OSDI), Seattle, USA (2006)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Woo, A., Tong, T., Culler, D.: Taming the underlying challenges of reliable multihop routing in sensor networks. ACM SenSys, 14–27 (2003)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Niclas Finne
    • 1
  • Joakim Eriksson
    • 1
  • Adam Dunkels
    • 1
  • Thiemo Voigt
    • 1
  1. 1.Swedish Institute of Computer ScienceKistaSweden

Personalised recommendations