Difference between revisions of "Journal:Wireless positioning in IoT: A look at current and future trends"

From LIMSWiki
Jump to navigationJump to search
(Saving and adding more.)
(Saving and adding more.)
Line 55: Line 55:


Lin ''et al.''<ref name="LinPositioning17">{{cite journal |title=Positioning for the Internet of Things: A 3GPP Perspective |journal=IEEE Communications Magazine |author=Lin, X.; Bergman, J.; Gunnarsson, F. et al. |volume=55 |issue=12 |pages=179–85 |year=2017 |doi=10.1109/MCOM.2017.1700269}}</ref> focus on the Long-Term Evolution (LTE) Machine type communications (LTE-M) and Narrow Band Internet of Things (NB-IoT) protocols and their positioning capabilities. The authors demonstrate that at 46 dBm power of the transmit AN, positioning accuracy goes to around 10 m and that NB-IoT protocol supports better positioning accuracy than LTE-M protocol.<ref name="LinPositioning17" /> A similar study focuses on indoor localization via improved received signal strength (RSS) fingerprinting in generic IoT devices.<ref name="LinEnhanced16">{{cite journal |title=Enhanced Fingerprinting and Trajectory Prediction for IoT Localization in Smart Buildings |journal=IEEE Transactions on Automation Science and Engineering |author=Lin, K.; Chen, M..; Deng, J. et al. |volume=13 |issue=3 |pages=1294–307 |year=2016 |doi=10.1109/TASE.2016.2543242}}</ref> The results are based on 802.11b/g/n signals where location errors below 5 m are achieved in more than 50 percent of the studied cases.
Lin ''et al.''<ref name="LinPositioning17">{{cite journal |title=Positioning for the Internet of Things: A 3GPP Perspective |journal=IEEE Communications Magazine |author=Lin, X.; Bergman, J.; Gunnarsson, F. et al. |volume=55 |issue=12 |pages=179–85 |year=2017 |doi=10.1109/MCOM.2017.1700269}}</ref> focus on the Long-Term Evolution (LTE) Machine type communications (LTE-M) and Narrow Band Internet of Things (NB-IoT) protocols and their positioning capabilities. The authors demonstrate that at 46 dBm power of the transmit AN, positioning accuracy goes to around 10 m and that NB-IoT protocol supports better positioning accuracy than LTE-M protocol.<ref name="LinPositioning17" /> A similar study focuses on indoor localization via improved received signal strength (RSS) fingerprinting in generic IoT devices.<ref name="LinEnhanced16">{{cite journal |title=Enhanced Fingerprinting and Trajectory Prediction for IoT Localization in Smart Buildings |journal=IEEE Transactions on Automation Science and Engineering |author=Lin, K.; Chen, M..; Deng, J. et al. |volume=13 |issue=3 |pages=1294–307 |year=2016 |doi=10.1109/TASE.2016.2543242}}</ref> The results are based on 802.11b/g/n signals where location errors below 5 m are achieved in more than 50 percent of the studied cases.
del Peral-Rosado ''et al.'' investigate a time-domain based positioning with additional frequency hopping for the NB-IoT system. The obtained positioning accuracy is down to 30–50 m under strong signal-to-noise ratio conditions, and it deteriorates quickly for medium and low signal-to-noise ratios.<ref name="delPeral-RosadoImpact17">{{cite journal |title=Impact of frequency-hopping NB-IoT positioning in 4G and future 5G networks |journal=IEEE International Conference on Communications Workshops |author=del Peral-Rosado, J.A.; López-Salcedo, J.A.; Seco-Granados, G. |pages=815–20 |year=2017 |doi=10.1109/ICCW.2017.7962759}}</ref>
Chen ''et al.''<ref name="ChenRobust17">{{cite journal |title=Robustness, Security and Privacy in Location-Based Services for Future IoT: A Survey |journal=IEEE Access |author=Chen, L.; Thombre, S.; Järvinen, K. et al. |volume=5 |pages=8956–77 |year=2017 |doi=10.1109/ACCESS.2017.2695525}}</ref> released a study complementary to our work, looking at IoT positioning from the perspective of security, privacy, and robustness of the localization technology. No positioning results were reported in the study. Another complementary study by Singh and Kapoor<ref name="SinghCreate17">{{cite journal |title=Create Your Own Internet of Things: A survey of IoT platforms |journal=IEEE Consumer Electronics Magazine |author=Singh, K.J.; Kapoor, D.S. |volume=6 |issue=2 |pages=57–68 |year=2017 |doi=10.1109/MCE.2016.2640718}}</ref> focuses on existing and emerging software and hardware platforms for IoT applications, but positioning was not part of that study. IoT positioning has recently been considered by Zhang ''et al.''<ref name="ZhangSecure17">{{cite journal |title=Secure Location of Things (SLOT): Mitigating Localization Spoofing Attacks in the Internet of Things |journal=IEEE Internet of Things Journal |author=Zhang, P.; Nagarajan, S.G.; Nevat, I. |volume=4 |issue=6 |pages=2199–206 |year=2017 |doi=10.1109/JIOT.2017.2753579}}</ref> from the point of view of spoofing resistance in time of arrival (TOA) ultra-wideband (UWB) for IoT systems.
Other complementary comprehensive studies, focusing solely on the communication aspects of IoT, are authored by Al-Sarawi ''et al.''<ref name="Al-SarawiInternet17">{{cite journal |title=Internet of Things (IoT) communication protocols: Review |journal=Proceedings from the 8th International Conference on Information Technology |author=Al-Sarawi, S.; Anbar, M.; Alieyan, K. et al. |pages=685–90 |year=2017 |doi=10.1109/ICITECH.2017.8079928}}</ref> and Raza ''et al.''<ref name="RazaLow17">{{cite journal |title=Low Power Wide Area Networks: An Overview |journal=IEEE Communications Surveys & Tutorials |author=Raza, U.; Kulkarni, P.; Sooriyabandara, M. |volume=19 |issue=2 |pages=855–73 |year=2017 |doi=10.1109/COMST.2017.2652320}}</ref>


==References==
==References==

Revision as of 18:03, 7 August 2018

Full article title Wireless positioning in IoT: A look at current and future trends
Journal Sensors
Author(s) e Silva, Pedro Figueiredo; Kaseva, Ville; Lohan, Elena Simona
Author affiliation(s) Tampere University of Technology, Wirepas
Primary contact Email: pedro.figs.silva@gmail.com
Year published 2018
Volume and issue 18(8)
Page(s) 2470
DOI 10.3390/s18082470
ISSN 1424-8220
Distribution license Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International
Website http://www.mdpi.com/1424-8220/18/8/2470/htm
Download http://www.mdpi.com/1424-8220/18/8/2470/pdf (PDF)
This article contains rendered mathematical formulae. You may require the Math Anywhere plugin for Chrome or the Native MathML add-on and fonts for Firefox if they don't render properly for you.
This article should not be considered complete until this message box has been removed. This is a work in progress.

Abstract

Connectivity solutions for the internet of things (IoT) aim to support the needs imposed by several applications or use cases across multiple sectors, such as logistics, agriculture, asset management, or smart lighting. Each of these applications has its own challenges to solve, such as dealing with large or massive networks, low and ultra-low latency requirements, long battery life requirements (i.e., more than ten years operation on battery), continuously monitoring of the location of certain nodes, security, and authentication. Hence, a part of picking a connectivity solution for a certain application depends on how well its features solve the specific needs of the end application. One key feature that we see as a need for future IoT networks is the ability to provide location-based information for large-scale IoT applications. The goal of this paper is to highlight the importance of positioning features for IoT applications and to provide means of comparing and evaluating different connectivity protocols in terms of their positioning capabilities. Our compact and unified analysis ends with several case studies, both simulation-based and measurement-based, which show that high positioning accuracy on low-cost low-power devices is feasible if one designs the system properly.

Keywords: internet of things (IoT), wireless positioning, indoor location

Introduction

Nowadays, the amount of connected wireless devices is growing, e.g., smart watches, smart light bulbs, smart toothbrushes, smart coffee mugs, etc. The trend in the information technology industry is towards connecting and extracting analytics from a variety of inter-connected wireless devices.

While many IoT applications have so far focused on the consumer realm, more and more industrial applications are also appearing, such as utilities measurement (e.g., water, electricity, and gas), industrial lighting, logistics, and smart agriculture. Enabling such industrial applications means that IoT networks need to support large amounts of devices, multiple years of operation on battery, different latency requirements, and low costs per unit.

We believe that, on top of the communications and reliability requirements of a wireless link, many IoT applications will require or benefit from knowing the location of certain devices. Such location information will be needed seamlessly, both indoors and outdoors, and without the battery-draining Global Navigation Satellite Systems (GNSS) chipsets. The need for localization and tracking appears not only from the network management point of view, but also from a business perspective, driving new business models and new business avenues.

Nevertheless, enabling or creating a positioning system with an IoT network is not a trivial task. The reason behind this is that industrial applications seek a low per unit cost of their IoT devices, which results in devices with very limited hardware components, such as CPU, memory, and battery. The limited hardware has an impact on the number of devices that a single device can serve and how fast it can process network and application requests. However, while CPU and memory will have an important impact on the scale of the network, the biggest challenge for enabling a positioning system lies on the proper management of the devices’ radio.

The need for proper radio management becomes evident as there are devices with known coordinates which will broadcast specific payloads on a regular basis and other devices whose locations are to be determined, which will need to scan the spectrum frequently. Hence, too frequent broadcasting will lead to spectrum congestion and increased packet collision, whereas frequent scanning leads to high battery consumption, which is particularly problematic for battery-operated devices.

Overall, the biggest challenge to tackle for an IoT positioning network is to balance the power consumption against the performance of the system. A very reactive system will have to rely on frequent scanning and broadcasting of its members, which means that devices will need to draw large quantities of power. A low reactive system will draw less power with devices scanning very seldom.

The goal of this paper is to provide an insight on positioning capabilities of the current IoT technologies and other relevant IoT-enabling wireless technologies, such as WiFi. The paper starts by classifying three domains of positioning and discussing the main shortcomings of each of these domains for IoT devices. It then classifies the different IoT solutions according to six classification criteria, and it provides a discussion on the main system parameters relevant to positioning and tracking purposes. This discussion acts as a basis for comparison between the different IoT wireless solutions. To further complement this discussion, we present positioning results based on simulation-based scenarios and field experiments with a platform built on top of the Wirepas Mesh connectivity solution. In the end, we provide a short summary and conclusions of our findings.

Related work

At this moment, to the authors’ best knowledge, there are no comprehensive comparisons in the literature between different IoT protocols in terms of their positioning capabilities. There are, however, other studies that compare specific IoT technologies and which look at IoT from the communications point of view, as well as studies focusing on positioning with a particular technology, such as narrow-band IoT (NB-IoT) or BLE. In this section, we highlight the related work from literature studies.

A survey of localization methods for 5G, containing a short section also on IoT positioning, has been recently published as a white paper by the European Cooperation in Science & Technology (COST).[1] It has also been emphasized in this paper that localization will become a key component of future 5G systems, though accurate future localization solutions in 5G should exploit the multipath and non-line-of-sight information and should put more emphasis on heterogeneous data fusion mechanisms. However, such advanced solutions would also increase the power consumption on the devices and are not well-suited for the majority of IoT systems. Distinct from COST's work[1], our paper focuses mostly on low-cost low-power consumption IoT solutions.

Lin et al.[2] focus on the Long-Term Evolution (LTE) Machine type communications (LTE-M) and Narrow Band Internet of Things (NB-IoT) protocols and their positioning capabilities. The authors demonstrate that at 46 dBm power of the transmit AN, positioning accuracy goes to around 10 m and that NB-IoT protocol supports better positioning accuracy than LTE-M protocol.[2] A similar study focuses on indoor localization via improved received signal strength (RSS) fingerprinting in generic IoT devices.[3] The results are based on 802.11b/g/n signals where location errors below 5 m are achieved in more than 50 percent of the studied cases.

del Peral-Rosado et al. investigate a time-domain based positioning with additional frequency hopping for the NB-IoT system. The obtained positioning accuracy is down to 30–50 m under strong signal-to-noise ratio conditions, and it deteriorates quickly for medium and low signal-to-noise ratios.[4]

Chen et al.[5] released a study complementary to our work, looking at IoT positioning from the perspective of security, privacy, and robustness of the localization technology. No positioning results were reported in the study. Another complementary study by Singh and Kapoor[6] focuses on existing and emerging software and hardware platforms for IoT applications, but positioning was not part of that study. IoT positioning has recently been considered by Zhang et al.[7] from the point of view of spoofing resistance in time of arrival (TOA) ultra-wideband (UWB) for IoT systems.

Other complementary comprehensive studies, focusing solely on the communication aspects of IoT, are authored by Al-Sarawi et al.[8] and Raza et al.[9]

References

  1. ↑ 1.0 1.1 del Peral-Rosado, J.A.; Seco-Granados, G.; Raulefs, R. et al. (April 2018). "Whitepaper on New Localization Methods for 5G Wireless Systems and the Internet-of-Things". In Witrisal, K.; Antón-Haro, C. (PDF). COST. http://www.iracon.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/IRACON-WP2.pdf. 
  2. ↑ 2.0 2.1 Lin, X.; Bergman, J.; Gunnarsson, F. et al. (2017). "Positioning for the Internet of Things: A 3GPP Perspective". IEEE Communications Magazine 55 (12): 179–85. doi:10.1109/MCOM.2017.1700269. 
  3. ↑ Lin, K.; Chen, M..; Deng, J. et al. (2016). "Enhanced Fingerprinting and Trajectory Prediction for IoT Localization in Smart Buildings". IEEE Transactions on Automation Science and Engineering 13 (3): 1294–307. doi:10.1109/TASE.2016.2543242. 
  4. ↑ del Peral-Rosado, J.A.; López-Salcedo, J.A.; Seco-Granados, G. (2017). "Impact of frequency-hopping NB-IoT positioning in 4G and future 5G networks". IEEE International Conference on Communications Workshops: 815–20. doi:10.1109/ICCW.2017.7962759. 
  5. ↑ Chen, L.; Thombre, S.; Järvinen, K. et al. (2017). "Robustness, Security and Privacy in Location-Based Services for Future IoT: A Survey". IEEE Access 5: 8956–77. doi:10.1109/ACCESS.2017.2695525. 
  6. ↑ Singh, K.J.; Kapoor, D.S. (2017). "Create Your Own Internet of Things: A survey of IoT platforms". IEEE Consumer Electronics Magazine 6 (2): 57–68. doi:10.1109/MCE.2016.2640718. 
  7. ↑ Zhang, P.; Nagarajan, S.G.; Nevat, I. (2017). "Secure Location of Things (SLOT): Mitigating Localization Spoofing Attacks in the Internet of Things". IEEE Internet of Things Journal 4 (6): 2199–206. doi:10.1109/JIOT.2017.2753579. 
  8. ↑ Al-Sarawi, S.; Anbar, M.; Alieyan, K. et al. (2017). "Internet of Things (IoT) communication protocols: Review". Proceedings from the 8th International Conference on Information Technology: 685–90. doi:10.1109/ICITECH.2017.8079928. 
  9. ↑ Raza, U.; Kulkarni, P.; Sooriyabandara, M. (2017). "Low Power Wide Area Networks: An Overview". IEEE Communications Surveys & Tutorials 19 (2): 855–73. doi:10.1109/COMST.2017.2652320. 

Notes

This presentation is faithful to the original, with only a few minor changes to presentation. In some cases important information was missing from the references, and that information was added. Some grammar, punctuation, and minor wording issues have been corrected.

Retrieved from "https://www.limswiki.org/index.php?title=Journal:Wireless_positioning_in_IoT:_A_look_at_current_and_future_trends&oldid=33642"