Sie sind auf Seite 1von 6



E-MAIL ID : Kiranmkkiru !!"#mai$.%&m CONTACT NUM'ERS: () *!+) ,*+*().(+


Wireless ad-hoc sensor networks have emerged as an

interesting and important research area in the last few years. The applications envisioned for such networks require collaborative execution of a distributed task amongst a large set of sensor nodes. This is realized by exchanging messages that are time stamped using the local clocks on the nodes. Therefore, time synchronization becomes an indispensable piece of infrastructure in such systems. or years, protocols such as !T" have kept the clocks of networked systems #owever, in perfect this new synchrony. class of

established in the network and then a pair wise synchronization is performed along the edges of this structure to establish a global timescale throughout the network. *ventually all nodes in the network synchronize their clocks to a reference node. We implement our algorithm on +erkeley motes and show that it can synchronize a pair of neighboring motes to an average accuracy of less than ,-s. We argue that T"'! roughly gives a ,x better performance as compared to .eference +roadcast 'ynchronization (.+') and verify this by implementing .+' on motes. We also show the performance of T"'! over small multihop networks of motes and use simulations to verify its accuracy over large-scale networks. We show that the synchronization accuracy does not degrade significantly with the increase in number of nodes being deployed, making T"'! completely scalable. INTRODUCTION: %dvances in microelectronics fabrication have allowed the integration of sensing,

networks has a large density of nodes and very limited energy resource at every node$ this leads to scalability requirements while limiting the resources that can be used to achieve them. % new approach to time synchronization is needed for sensor networks. &n this paper, we present Timing-sync "rotocol for 'ensor !etworks (T"'!) that aims at providing network-wide time synchronization in a sensor network. The algorithm works in two steps. &n the first step, a hierarchical structure is

processing communication


wireless into

clocks, so that a right chronology of events can be detected. 5n the other hand, for sensor such as network detecting applications


low-cost and small form-factor embedded systems called sensor nodes /01, /,1. The need for unobtrusive and remote monitoring is the main a motivation sensing network for and (sensor deploying

brushfires, gas leaks etc.$ the time of occurrence of an event is itself a critical parameter. or such class of applications, the synchronization of the complete network with every node maintaining a unique global time scale becomes paramount.Time is also synchronization


network) consisting of a large number of these battery-powered nodes.The applications envisioned for sensor networks vary from monitoring inhospitable habitats and disaster areas to operating indoors for intrusion detection and equipment monitoring. 2ost of these applications require sensor nodes to maintain local clocks in order to determine the timing of the events. &n general, sensor nodes gather sensor readings, and use several signal processing or example, techniques to get meaningful results from this raw data. the target tracking applications use 3alman filter to estimate the target position /41. 'uch signal-processing techniques require relative synchronization among sensor node

indispensable in the implementation of the commonly used medium access control (2%6) protocols such as T72% /81.

Time synchronization problem has been investigated thoroughly in &nternet and 9%!s. 'everal technologies such as :"', radio ranging etc have been used to provide global synchronization in networks. 6omplex protocols such as !T" /;1 have been developed that have kept the &nternet<s clocks ticking in phase. #owever, the time synchronization requirements differ drastically in the context of sensor

networks. &n general such networks are dense, consisting of a large number of sensor nodes. To operate in such large network densities, we need the time synchronization algorithm to be scalable with the number of nodes being deployed. %lso, energy efficiency is a ma=or concern in these networks due to the limited battery capacity of the sensor nodes. This eliminates the use of external energy-hungry equipments, such as :"'. 2oreover, time synchronization requirements are much more stringent, often requiring synchronization of the order of microseconds among nodes involved in a task such as tracking a target. "ermission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and>or a fee. WIRELESS SENSOR NETWORKS ARCHITECHTURE: SYSTEM MODEL: We have N sensor nodes scattered in an area A. *very node maintains a 0?-bit register as a clock that is triggered by a crystal oscillator. This is the only notion of time that a node has. &n this paper, we provide an integrated algorithm that aims at providing time synchronization following the always-on model. Thus, the goal is to establish a common timescale for every node in the sensor network and therefore, synchronize the 0?-bit clock for every sensor node. We begin by describing the basic concept of T"'! and proceed to outline the assumptions about the system

'ASIC CONCEPT@ The first step of the algorithm is to create a hierarchical topology in the network. *very node is assigned a level in this hierarchical structure. We ensure that a node belonging to level I can communicate with at least one node belonging to level i-1.5nly one node is assigned to level 0, which we call the Aroot nodeB. We call this stage of our algorithm as the Alevel discovery phaseB. 5nce the hierarchical structure has been established, the root node initiates the second stage of the algorithm, which is called the Asynchronization phaseB. &n this phase, a node belonging to level i synchronize to a node belonging to level i-1. *ventually every node is synchronized to the root node and we achieve network-wide time synchronization. WIRELESS SNSOR NETWORK PHASES:

'/n/0i12 &0 3ir/$/22 2/n2&r n/13&rk2:

C *ase of deployment D Without extensive cabling between sensors and data acquisition systems C 9ow costs of deployment D 'avings on cabling costs$ wireless sensors also possess computation capability C ine grain of monitoring D *ase and low costs larger numbers and denser placement that increases spatial resolution of data collection, and better quality of assessment.

A44$i%a1i&n ar/a2 an5 i22u/2:

C 'tructural monitoring D 2ay need lifetime of sensors to be in the order of decades, especially the deeply

embedded ones C &n-door environmental monitoring D 2ulti-modal, coupled with actuation C *xtreme event response D !eed realtime and dependability guarantees, e.g. escape path finding through hazardous regions

extended to comparison between sender-receiver and receiverreceiver synchronization based algorithms in general. &n case of traditional wireless networks the uncertainty in 2%6 delay is so large that it completely overshadows the effect of other factors, resulting in giving an edge to algorithms based on receiver synchronization. #owever in case of sensor networks, by having the flexibility of time stamping the packets at the 2%6 layer, we remove this critical source of error. %s a result, we believe that the classical approach of doing senderreceiver synchronization is a better approach of doing time synchronization than receiverreceiver synchronization in sensor networks. We have shown this via a detailed analysis and we verify our claim by implementing T"'! and .+' on motes.

Im4a%1 &0 1/%6n&$&#7:

C 'ensor networks with indefinite lifetime C *nvironmentally clean C 7ata delivery algorithm will continue to work as energy harvesting technology improves, and work better C *specially suitable for the trillions of embedded devices and sensor networks once deployed, cannot be physically accessed. CONCLUSION: %s can be seen from the above analysis, T"'! would give roughly a ,x better performance for all the sources of error as compared to .+'. #owever, T"'! has an added contribution from the uncertainty at the sender whereas .+' completely removes this as a source of error. This analysis can be