BOUKERCHE LAYOUT 12/4/07 1:55 PM Page 6
WIRELESS SENSOR NETWORKING
LOCALIZATION SYSTEMS FOR
WIRELESS SENSOR NETWORKS
AZZEDINE BOUKERCHE, UNIVERSITY OF OTTAWA
HORACIO A. B. F. OLIVEIRA, UNIVERSITY OF OTTAWA, FEDERAL UNIVERSITY OF AMAZONAS
EDUARDO F. NAKAMURA, FEDERAL UNIVERSITY OF MINAS GERAIS AND FUCAPI
ANTONIO A. F. LOUREIRO, FEDERAL UNIVERSITY OF MINAS GERAIS
(x1, y1)
ABSTRACT
(x2, y2)
d1 Monitoring applications define an important
(x, y) d2
class of applications used in wireless sensor net-
(x3, y3) works. In these applications the network per-
d3 ceives the environment and searches for event
(a) occurrences (phenomena) by sensing different
physical properties, such as temperature, humidi-
ty, pressure, ambient light, movement, and pres-
N ence (for target tracking). In such cases the
(x2, y2) 2 location information of both phenomena and
nodes is usually required for tracking and corre-
N (e)
1
lation purposes. In this work we summarize most
of the concepts related to localization systems for
(x1, y1)
(x, y) WSNs as well as how to localize the nodes in
these networks (which allows the localization of
phenomena). By dividing the localization systems
The authors into three distinct components distance/angle
estimation, position computation, and localiza-
summarize most of tion algorithm besides providing a didactic
viewpoint, we show that these components can
the concepts related be seen as subareas of the localization problem
to localization that need to be analyzed and studied separately.
systems for WSNs INTRODUCTION
as well as how to The definition of a localization system among
sensor nodes is a fundamental issue for many
localize the nodes in applications of wireless sensor networks (WSNs).
Because sensor networks may be deployed in
these networks inaccessible terrains or disaster relief operations
(which allows the [1], the position of sensor nodes may not be pre-
determined. Thus, a localization system is
localization of required in order to provide position informa-
tion to the nodes.
phenomena). The importance of localization information
arises from several factors, many of which are
related only to WSNs. These factors include the
identification and correlation of gathered data,
node addressing, management and query of
nodes localized in a determined region, evalua-
tion of nodes density and coverage, energy map
generation, geographic routing, object tracking,
and other geographic algorithms. All of these
factors make localization systems a key technolo-
6 1536-1284/07/$20.00 2007 IEEE
gy for the development and operation of WSNs.
In this article we address the localization
problem from the viewpoint of a WSN. In the
next two sections we briefly present an overview
and definition of localization systems for WSNs
and their components. We show the main meth-
ods used by localization systems to estimate dis-
tances and angles. We show the techniques that
can be used by a node to compute its position,
and how all the estimated information of dis-
tances and positions can be manipulated in
order to allow most or all of the nodes of a WSN
to estimate their positions. Finally, we present
our conclusions.
PROBLEM STATEMENT
A WSN can be composed of n nodes with a com-
munication range of r, distributed in a two-
dimensional squared sensor field Q = [0,s]
[0,s]. For the sake of simplification, we consider
symmetric communication link; that is, for any
two nodes u and v, u reaches v if and only if v
reaches u and with the same signal strength w.
Thus, we represent the network by the Euclidean
graph G = (V, E) with the following properties:
V = {v1, v2, , vn} is the set of sensor nodes.
i, j if v i reaches v j; that is, the distance
between vi and vj is less than r.
w(e) r is the weight of edge e = i, j, the dis-
tance between vi and vj.
Some terms can be used to designate the
state of a node:
Definition 1 (Unknown Nodes U): Also
known as free or dumb nodes, this term refers to
the nodes of the network that do not know their
localization information. To allow these nodes to
estimate their positions is the main goal of a
localization system.
Definition 2 (Settled Nodes S): These nodes
were initially unknown nodes that managed to
estimate their positions by using the localization
system. The number of settled nodes and the
estimated position error of these nodes are the
main parameters for determining the quality of a
localization system.
IEEE Wireless Communications December 2007
BOUKERCHE LAYOUT 12/4/07 1:55 PM Page 7

Definition 3 (Beacon Nodes B): Also known

as landmarks or anchors, these are the nodes
that do not need a localization system in order Position
Distance
to estimate their physical positions. Their local- estimation Localization computation
ization is obtained by manual placement or systems
external means such as GPS. These nodes form
the base of most localization systems for WSNs.
The localization problem can then be defined
as follows.
Definition 4 (Localization Problem): Given a Localization algorithm
multihop network G = (V, E), and a set of bea-
con nodes B and their positions (xb, yb), for all b
B, we want to find the position (x u , y u ) of as
many u U as possible, transforming these
unknown nodes into settled nodes, S.

THE COMPONENTS OF LOCALIZATION SYSTEMS
Localization systems can be divided into three
distinct components:
Distance/angle estimation: This component is
responsible for estimating information about
the distances and/or angles between two
nodes. This information will be used by the
other components of the localization system.
Position computation: This component is
responsible for computing a nodes position
based on available information concerning dis-
tances/angles and positions of reference nodes.
Localization algorithm: This is the main com-
ponent of a localization system. It determines
how the available information will be manipu-
lated in order to allow most or all of the nodes
of a WSN to estimate their positions.
Figure 1 depicts this component division.
Besides providing a didactic viewpoint, the
importance of such a division into components
comes, as we will see, from the need to recog-
nize that the final performance of a localization
system depends directly on each of these compo-
nents. Also, each component has its own goal
and methods of solution. They can thus be seen
as subareas of the localization problem that
need to be analyzed and studied separately.
DISTANCE/ANGLE ESTIMATION
Distance/angle estimation consists in identifying
the distance or angle between two nodes. Such
estimates constitute an important component of
localization systems, because they are used by
both the position computation and localization
algorithm components.
Different methods can be used to estimate
such information. Some of these methods are
Figure 1. Division of localization systems into three distinct components.
very accurate, but with higher costs (in terms of
hardware, energy, and processor resources),
while others are less accurate but already avail-
able on most sensor nodes.
In the following sections some of the main
methods used by localization systems to estimate
distances/angles will be studied. These methods
include received signal strength indication
(RSSI), time of arrival/time difference of arrival
(ToA/TDoA), angle of arrival (AoA), and com-
munication range.
RECEIVED SIGNAL STRENGTH INDICATOR
RSSI can be used to estimate the distance
between two nodes based on the strength of the
signal received by another node. As depicted in
Fig. 2a, a sender node sends a signal with a
determined strength that fades as the signal
propagates. The bigger the distance to the
receiver node, the lesser the signal strength
when it arrives at that node.
Theoretically, the signal strength is inversely
proportional to squared distance, and a known
radio propagation model can be used to convert
the signal strength into distance. However, in
real-world environments, this indicator is highly
influenced by noises, obstacles, and the type of
antenna, which makes it hard to model mathe-
matically. In these cases it is common to make a
system calibration [2], where values of RSSI and
distances are evaluated ahead of time in a con-
trolled environment.
This method, like the others, has both advan-
tages and disadvantages. The main advantage is
its low cost, because most receivers are capable

Transmitter Receiver Transmitter Receiver

t1
Radio sign Radio sign
al t2 al t1

Ult
ras
ou
nd Set
pu
Time

Time

lse of
receivers
t2
Communication range Sensor node
Distance Distance
(a) (b) (c) (d)

Figure 2. a) Decrease in signal strength; b), c) methods to derive the distance from the signal's arrival time; d) angle of arrival of the
signal.

IEEE Wireless Communications December 2007 7

BOUKERCHE LAYOUT 12/4/07 1:55 PM Page 8
Different methods try of estimating the received signal strength. The
disadvantage of this method is that it is very sus-
to estimate distances ceptible to noise and interference, which results
in higher inaccuracies of distance estimations.
between two nodes Some experiments [3] show errors from 2 to 3 m
in scenarios where all nodes are placed in a
using time based plane field 1.5 m from the ground with a com-
munication range of 10 m.
measures. The most Although RSSI shows plausible results in sim-
simple and intuitive ulations and controlled experiments, its usage in
real-world applications is still questionable [4].
is ToA. In this case, But, considering its low cost, it is possible that a
more sophisticated and precise use of RSSI (e.g.,
the distance between with better transmitters) could become the most
used technology of distance estimation from the
two nodes is directly cost/precision viewpoint [5]. However, this tech-
nology is not yet available.
proportional to the
TIME [DIFFERENCE] OF ARRIVAL
time that the signal Different methods try to estimate distances
takes to propagate between two nodes using time based measures.
The most simple and intuitive is ToA [6]. In this
from one point to case the distance between two nodes is directly
proportional to the time the signal takes to
another. propagate from one point to another. This way,
if a signal was sent at time t 1 and reached the
receiver node at time t 2, the distance between
sender and receiver is d = sr(t2 t1), where sr is
the propagation speed of the radio signal (speed
of light), and t 1 and t 2 are the times when the
signal was sent and received (Fig. 2b). This type
of estimation requires precisely synchronized
nodes and the time at which the signal leaves the
node must be in the packet that is sent.
TDoA is based on:
The difference in the times at which a single
signal from a single node arrives at three or
more nodes
The difference in the times at which multiple
signals from a single node arrive at another
node
The first case, which is more common in cellular
networks, requires precisely synchronized receiv-
er nodes (in this case base stations). In the sec-
ond case, more common and suitable for WSNs,
the nodes must be equipped with extra hardware
capable of sending two types of signals simulta-
neously. These signals must have different prop-
agation speeds, like radio/ultrasound [7] or
radio/acoustic [2]. Usually, the first signal is the
packet itself, which propagates at the speed of
light ( 300.000 km/s), while the second signal is
some kind of sound, because of its slower propa-
gation ( 340 m/s), which is six orders of magni-
tude slower then the first signal.
An example of TDoA suitable for WSNs is
used by [3] and depicted in Fig. 2c, where an
ultrasound pulse is sent simultaneously with a
radio signal. In this case nodes compute the dif-
ference in the arrival times of the two signals.
The distance can now be computed by the for-
mula d = (s r s s )*(t 2 t 1 ), where s r and s s are
the propagation speed of the radio and ultra-
sound signals, and t1 and t2 are the arrival times
of the radio and ultrasound signals, respectively.
Another different and interesting way of com-
puting distance among nodes using the TDoA is
proposed by Fu et al. [8], and is based on the
direct sequence spread spectrum (DSSS) modu-
lation technique.
8 IEEE Wireless Communications December 2007
The errors in the distance estimations
obtained by TDoA are approximately centime-
ters. Experiments with ultrasound performed in
[3] indicate errors of about 2 or 3 cm (smaller
than the sensor node) in scenarios where nodes
were separated by distances of 3 m. In [9] acous-
tic sound was tested, and results showed errors
of about 23 cm, with nodes at distances of 2 m.
Despite the lower errors, these systems have
disadvantages. The first is the need for extra
hardware to send the second signal, which
increases node cost. The second disadvantage is
the generally limited range of the second signal,
which is normally between 3 and 10 m with more
powerful transmitters.
ANGLE/DIRECTION OF ARRIVAL
The AoA of the signal [7, 10] can also be used
by localization systems. This angle can be in
relation to the node itself, to an electronic com-
pass, or to a second signal received by the node.
The estimation of the AoA is done by using
directive antennas or an array of receivers usu-
ally three or more that are uniformly separated.
In the last case, based on the arrival times of the
signal at each of the receivers, it becomes possible
to estimate the AoA of this signal (Fig. 2d).
Experiments show that this method has an
inaccuracy of some degrees (about 5 in [7]). The
need for extra hardware and a minimum distance
between the receivers results in some disadvan-
tages in terms of the cost and size of nodes.
COMMENTS ABOUT THE
DISTANCE/ANGLE ESTIMATION
The choice of which method to use to estimate
the distance between nodes in a localization sys-
tem is an important factor that influences the
final performance of the system. Usually, as
shown in the next section, to estimate a position,
a node uses at least three distance estimations,
each with an associated error. On the other
hand, if only the accuracy of these methods was
important, we could just use TDoA since it has
fewer errors. However, factors including the size
and cost (in terms of hardware, processor, and
energy) of the nodes must also be taken into
consideration. Thus, the method chosen for esti-
mating distances depends on the application
requirements as well as available resources.
POSITION COMPUTATION
When a node has enough information about dis-
tances and/or angles and positions, it can com-
pute its own position using one of the methods
studied in this section.
Several methods can be used to compute the
position of a node. Such methods include trilat-
eration, multilateration, triangulation, probabilis-
tic approaches, bounding box, and the central
position. The choice of which method to use also
impacts the final performance of the localization
system. Such a choice depends on the informa-
tion available and the processors limitations.
TRILATERATION AND MULTILATERATION
Trilateration is the most basic and intuitive
method. This method computes a nodes posi-
BOUKERCHE LAYOUT 12/4/07 1:55 PM Page 9

(x1, y1) (x2, y2)

r3 (x1, y1) (x1, y1)
(x2, y2)
d1 (x1, y1) r1 (x, y) d1
r2 d1 d2 (x2, y2)
(x, y) d2 (x, y)
d1 e1 (x2, y2) (x5, y5) d3 d2
(x, y) Residuals =
(x3, y3) e2 r1+r2+r3 d5 d (x3, y3)
e3 4
(x3, y3)
d3 d3
d3(x , y ) (x4, y4)
3 3
(a) r1 = d1 e1(b) (c) Bounding box (d)

N 104 104
6 5
(x2, y2)
(x2, y2) 2 4
4 3
23
(e) 12 (x3, y3) 2
N 2
(x, y) 1
1 31
0 0 75
80 85 6570
(x1, y1) 90 70 80 5560
(x1, y2) 80 60 75 50
(f) 70 (g) 4045 (h)
(x, y) 6050 40 50 70 65

Figure 3. a) Theoretical model of trilateration; b) a more realistic model of trilateration; c) multilateration; d) bounding box;
e), f) triangulation; g), h) probabilistic approach (from [11]).

tion via the intersection of three circles, as
depicted in Fig. 3a. To estimate its position
using trilateration, a node needs to know the
positions of three reference nodes and its dis-
tance from each of these nodes. Distances can
be estimated using one of the methods explained
in the previous section.
The circles formed by the position and dis-
tance to each of the references can be represent-
ed by the formula (x ^ x ) 2 + (y^ y ) 2 = d2,
i i i
where(x ^, ^y ) is the position we want to compute,
(xi, yi) is the position of the ith reference node,
and di is the distance of the ith reference node
to the unknown node. In this case we have three
equations with two unknowns, which can be
solved, theoretically, in one solution.
In real-world applications the distance esti-
mation inaccuracies as well as the inaccurate
position information of reference nodes make it
difficult to compute a position. As depicted in
Fig. 3b, the circles do not intersect at only one
point, resulting in an infinite set of possible solu-
tions.
Furthermore, when a larger number of refer-
ence points are available, we can use multilatera-
tion to compute the nodes position. In this case
an overdetermined system of equations must be
solved. Figure 3 depicts this case. Usually,
overdetermined systems do not have a unique
solution. When considering n reference points
and also the error of the distance estimations,
which makes di = d^i , the system of equations
becomes (x ^ x )2 + (y^ y )2 = d2 e, where is
i i i
normally considered to be an independent nor-
mal random variable with zero mean. This sys-
tem can be linearized, by subtracting the last
equation, into Ax b. This linear system can be
solved easily using standard methods like the
least squares approach.
The number of floating point operations
needed to compute a position depends on the
method used to solve the system of equations. In
the case of the least square method, (m + n/3)n2
floating point operations (where m is the num-
ber of unknowns and n is the number of equa-
tions) are required to estimate a position.
BOUNDING BOX
The bounding box method proposed in [12] uses
squares instead of circles as in trilateration
to bound the possible positions of a node. An
example of this method is depicted in Fig. 3d.
For each reference node i, a bounding box is
defined as a square with its center at the posi-
tion of this node (x i , y i ), with sides of size 2d i
(where d is the estimated distance) and with
coordinates (x i d i , y i d i ) and (x i + d i , y i +
di). The intersection of all bounding boxes can
be easily computed without any need for float-
ing point operations by taking the maximum of
the low coordinates and the minimum of the
high coordinates of all bounding boxes. This is
the shaded rectangle in Fig. 3d. The final posi-
tion of the unknown node is then computed as
the center of the intersection of all bounding
boxes.
Despite the final error of this method, which
is greater than trilateration, computing the inter-
section of squares uses fewer processor resources
than computing the intersection of circles.
TRIANGULATION
In triangulation [7, 10] information about angles
is used instead of distances. Position computa-
tion can be done remotely (Fig. 3e) or by the
node itself; the latter is more common in WSNs.
In this last case, depicted in Fig. 3f, at least
three reference nodes are required. The
unknown node estimates its angle to each of the
three reference nodes and, based on these angles
and the positions of the reference nodes (which
form a triangle), computes its own position using
simple trigonometrical relationships. This tech-
nique is similar to trilateration. In fact, based on
the AoAs, it is possible to derive the distances to
reference nodes [10].

IEEE Wireless Communications December 2007 9

BOUKERCHE LAYOUT 12/4/07 1:55 PM Page 10
In APS, a reduced PROBABILISTIC APPROACHES
number of beacon The uncertainty in distance estimations has moti-
vated the appearance of probabilistic approaches
nodes (e.g., three or for computing a nodes position. An example of a
probabilistic approach is proposed in [11], where
more) is deployed the errors in distance estimations are modeled as
normal random variables. When an unknown
with the unknown node receives a packet from a reference node, it
nodes. Then, each can be in any place around the reference node
with equal probabilities. When another packet is
node estimates its received from another reference node, the
unknown node computes its position again as
distance to the depicted in Fig. 3g. When new position informa-
tion is received from other nodes, it becomes
beacon nodes in a possible to identify the probable location of the
unknown node, as depicted in Fig. 3h.
multihop way. Once The main drawbacks of this approach are the
these distances are high computational cost and the space required
to store the information.
estimated, the nodes COMMENTS ABOUT POSITION COMPUTATION
can compute their A number of other methods exist that aim to com-
pute the position of a node. Location fingerprint-
positions using ing is a method in which the signal characteristics
obtained from a set of locations are catalogued,
trilateration. and the position computation of a node consists of
comparing its current signal characteristics with
those catalogued previously. This technique is
used by Bahl et al. [13] and other indoor localiza-
tion systems, but the need to generate a signal sig-
nature database makes this technique unfeasible
for most scenarios of WSNs. He et al., in the
APIT algorithm [4], use triangles formed by three
beacon nodes, and a node decides if it is inside or
outside these triangles by comparing its signal
strength measurements with the measurements of
its neighbors. The position of the node is comput-
ed by finding the centroid of the intersection of
the beacon triangles the node is within.
Other work concentrates all information
about distances between the nodes into a central
node and uses mathematical optimization tech-
niques to compute the positions of the nodes. As
an example, we have the work of Doherty et al.
[14] who formulate the localization problem as a
convex optimization problem based only on con-
nectivity-induced constraints and use a semidefi-
nite program (SDP) to solve the problem. There
is also the work of Shang et al. [15], who used
multidimensional scale (MDS).
LOCALIZATION ALGORITHM
The localization algorithm is the main compo-
nent of a localization system. This component
determines how the information concerning dis-
tances and positions is manipulated in order to
allow most or all of the nodes of a WSN to esti-
mate their positions.
Localization algorithms can be classified into
a few categories: distributed [6, 16, 17] or cen-
tralized position computation [14]; with [16, 17]
or without an infrastructure [6, 7, 18]; relative
[19, 20] or absolute positioning [6, 16]; designed
for indoor [7, 18] or outdoor scenarios [6]; and
one hop [6, 18] or multihop [16, 17].
Here some proposed localization algorithms
are discussed to show how this component dif-
ferentiates from the other components. These
10
algorithms are the Ad Hoc Positioning System
(APS), Recursive Position Estimation (RPE),
and Localization with a Mobile Beacon (LMB).
AD HOC POSITIONING SYSTEM
In APS [17] a reduced number of beacon nodes
(e.g., three or more) is deployed with the
unknown nodes. Then each node estimates its dis-
tance to the beacon nodes in a multihop way.
Once these distances are estimated, the nodes can
compute their positions using trilateration. Three
methods of hop-by-hop distance propagation are
proposed: Dv-Hop, Dv-Distance, and Euclidean.
In Dv-Hop APS the beacon nodes start the
propagation of their position information (Fig.
4a). Working as an extension of the distance vec-
tor algorithm, all nodes receive the position infor-
mation of all beacon nodes as well as the number
of hops to these beacons. When a beacon node
receives the position information of the other
beacon nodes, it has enough information to com-
pute the average size of one hop based on its own
position, the position of the other beacon nodes,
and the number of hops between them (Fig. 4b).
This last value is then flooded in a controlled way
into the network as a correction factor. When an
unknown node receives a correction, it is able to
convert its distance to the beacon nodes from
number of hops to meters (Fig. 4c). The complex-
ity of message exchange in this algorithm is driven
by the total number of beacon and normal nodes,
which is O(n*(m + 1)), where n is the number of
nodes and m is the number of beacon nodes.
An advantage of the APS is that its localiza-
tion algorithm requires a low number of beacon
nodes in order to work. However, the way dis-
tances are propagated, especially in Dv-Hop and
Dv-Distance, as well as the way these distances
are converted from hops to meters in Dv-Hop,
result in erroneous position computation, which
increases the final localization error of the system.
RECURSIVE POSITION ESTIMATION
In RPE [16] nodes estimate their positions based
on a set of initial beacon nodes (e.g., 5 percent
of the nodes) using only local information. Local-
ization information increases iteratively as newly
settled nodes become reference nodes.
The RPE algorithm can be divided into four
phases, as depicted in Fig. 5. In the first phase a
node determines its reference nodes. In the sec-
ond phase the node estimates its distance to
these reference nodes using, for example, RSSI.
In the third phase the node computes its posi-
tion using trilateration (becoming a settled
node). In the final phase the node becomes a
reference node by broadcasting its newly esti-
mated position to its neighbors. When a node
becomes a reference, it can assist other nodes in
computing their positions as well.
An advantage of this algorithm is that the
number of reference nodes increases quickly, in
such a way that the majority of the nodes can
compute their position. But this technique has the
disadvantage of propagating localization errors.
This means that the inaccurate position estimation
of one node can be used by other nodes to esti-
mate their positions, increasing this inaccuracy.
Furthermore, a node must have at least three ref-
erence neighbors in order to compute its position.
IEEE Wireless Communications December 2007
BOUKERCHE LAYOUT 12/4/07 1:55 PM Page 11

(a) AvgHop = (68 + 54)/(3 + 2) (b)

=24.4 m

2 ho
m ps, 5
4m
s , 68
hop 0m
3 4 hops, 11
AvgHop = 27.3 m

AvgHop = 25.4 m
(c)
Beacon node Unknown node

Settled node

Figure 4. Example and phases of APS Dv-Hop.

LOCALIZATION WITH A MOBILE BEACON

Some recent work [21] has proposed the use of
mobile beacons to assist the nodes of a WSN in
estimating their positions. A mobile beacon is a
node that is aware of its position (e.g., equipped d13 d13
d7 d8
with a GPS receiver) and has the ability to move
d9 d9
around the sensor field. This beacon can be a
human operator, an unmanned vehicle, an air-
craft, or a robot. (a) (b) (c) (d)
The system operation in [21] is quite simple.
Once the nodes are deployed, the mobile beacon Figure 5. Example and phases of RPE.
travels through the sensor field broadcasting
messages that contain its current coordinates.
When a free node receives more than three mes-
sages from the mobile beacon it computes its Mobile beacon Mobile beacon
position, using a probabilistic approach, based
on the received coordinates and RSSI distance Trajectory
estimations. Figure 6 illustrates this scenario and ry
three possible trajectories for the mobile beacon. Tr
aj Tra jecto
ec Mobile beacon
The communication cost for the WSN is null, to
ry
since none of the nodes (except the mobile bea-
con) need to send any packets.
An advantage of this algorithm is that position
estimations are computed based on the same (a) (b) (c)
node (mobile beacon), thus keeping the mean
localization error low and preventing the propa- Figure 6. Operation and possible trajectories of a mobile beacon.
gation of this error. In addition, this algorithm
avoids the use of nodes equipped with GPS,
except for the mobile beacon. On the other hand, directed localization recursion [22], or a beacon
in this technique a sensor node can estimate its infrastructure [18]. The choice of which algorithm
position only when the mobile beacon passes near to use depends on the resources available, the sce-
this node, which may take a long time depending nario, the requirements of the application, and the
on such factors as the size of the sensor field, the mean localization error acceptable to the nodes.
beacons mobility capacity, and the nodes trajec-
tory. Also, the mobile beacon may never pass FINAL REMARKS
near some nodes, because of either the trajectory
or a problem with the mobile beacon. This article has addressed the localization prob-
lem from the viewpoint of a WSN. We divided
COMMENTS ABOUT LOCALIZATION ALGORITHMS localization systems into three components: dis-
Several localization algorithms focus on different tance/angle estimation, position computation,
aspects such as errors, number of beacons, num- and localization algorithm.
ber of settled nodes, or GPS usage, among other The importance of such a division of localiza-
things. Usually, these algorithms [19, 20] try to tion systems into components lies in the need to
reduce or completely remove the need for GPS recognize that the final performance of localiza-
receivers on beacon nodes. Other algorithms take tion systems depends directly on each of these
advantage of certain network features, such as components. For instance, a localization system
beacons with high-powered transmitters [4], a should achieve better results if the TDoA

IEEE Wireless Communications December 2007 11

BOUKERCHE LAYOUT 12/4/07 1:55 PM Page 12
The necessity of method is used instead of RSSI to estimate dis-
tances. The same principle applies to the other
different solutions for components. These components can be seen as
subareas of the localization problem that need
different applications to be studied separately.
A general rule in WSNs is that there is not a
and also the high perfect solution suitable for every scenario. The
same rule applies to the localization problem.
number of possible This article has shown a number of proposed
applications of localization systems, each with an emphasis on a
specific scenario and/or application. The necessi-
WSNs has greatly ty of different solutions for different applications
and also the high number of possible applica-
motivated the study tions of WSNs have greatly motivated the study
and proposals of new solutions to the localiza-
and proposals of tion problem.
new solutions to the REFERENCES
[1] I. F. Akyildiz et al., Wireless Sensor Networks: A Survey,
localization problem. Comp. Networks, vol. 38, no. 4, Mar. 2002, pp. 393422.
[2] K. Whitehouse and D. Culler, Calibration as Parameter
Estimation in Sensor Networks, WSNA 02: Proc. 1st
ACM Intl. Wksp. Wireless Sensor Networks and Apps.,
ACM Press, 2002, pp. 5967.
[3] A. Savvides, C.-C. Han, and M. B. Strivastava, Dynamic
Fine-Grained Localization in Ad-Hoc Networks of Sen-
sors, 7th ACM/IEEE Intl. Conf. Mobile Computing and
Networking, Rome, Italy, 2001, pp. 16679.
[4] T. He et al., Range-Free Localization Schemes for Large
Scale Sensor Networks, MobiCom 03, ACM Press,
2003, pp. 81-95.
[5] J. Bachrach and C. Taylor, Localization in Sensor Net-
works, Handbook of Sensor Networks: Algorithms and
Architectures, I. Stojmenovic, Ed., Wiley, Sept. 2005.
[6] B. Hofmann-Wellenho, H. Lichtenegger, and J. Collins,
Global Positioning System: Theory and Practice, 4th
ed., Springer-Verlag, 1997.
[7] N. B. Priyantha et al., The Cricket Compass for Context-
Aware Mobile Applications, 7th ACM Intl. Conf. Mobile
Computing and Networking, Rome, Italy, July 2001.
[8] Y. Fu et al., The Localization of Wireless Sensor Net-
work Nodes Based on DSSS, Electro/Infor. Tech., 2006
IEEE Intl. Conf., 2006, pp. 46569.
[9] K. Whitehouse, The Design of Calamari: An Ad Hoc
Localization System for Sensor Networks, Masters the-
sis, UC Berkeley, 2002.
[10] D. Niculescu and B. Nath, Ad Hoc Positioning System
(APS) Using AOA, Proc. INFOCOM 03, San Francisco,
CA, 2003.
[11] V. Ramadurai and M. L. Sichitiu, Localization in Wire-
less Sensor Networks: A Probabilistic Approach, Proc.
ICWN 2003, Las Vegas, NV, June 2003, pp. 27581.
[12] S. Simic and S. Sastry, Distributed localization in
wireless ad hoc networks, UC Berkeley, Tech. rep.
UCB/ERL M02/26, 2002.
[13] P. Bahl and V. N. Padmanabhan, Radar: An In-Build-
ing RF-Based User Location and Tracking System, Proc.
IEEE INFOCOM 2000, vol. 2, Tel Aviv, Israel, Mar. 2000,
pp. 77584.
[14] L. Doherty, K. S. Pister, and L. E. Ghaoui, Convex
Position Estimation in Wireless Sensor Networks, IEEE
ICC 01, vol. 3, Anchorage, AK, Apr. 2001, pp. 165563.
[15] Y. Shang and W. Ruml, Improved MDS-Based Local-
ization, IEEE ICC 04, vol. 4, Mar. 2004, pp. 264051.
[16] J. Albowicz, A. Chen, and L. Zhang, Recursive Position
Estimation in Sensor Networks, 9th Intl. Conf. Net-
work Protocols, Nov. 2001, pp. 3541.
[17] D. Niculescu and B. Nath, Ad Hoc Positioning System
(APS), IEEE GLOBECOM 01, San Antonio, TX, Nov.
2001, pp. 292631.
[18] N. B. Priyantha, A. Chakraborty, and H. Balakrishnan,
The Cricket Location-Support System, Mobile Comp.
and Networking, Boston, MA, Aug. 2000, pp. 3243.
[19] N. Bulusu, J. Heidemann, and D. Estrin, GPS-Less Low
Cost Outdoor Localization for Very Small Devices, IEEE
Pers. Commun., vol. 7, no. 5, Oct. 2000, pp. 2834.
[20] S. Capkun, M. Hamdi, and J.-P. Hubaux, GPS-Free
Positioning in Mobile Ad Hoc Networks, Cluster Com-
puting, vol. 5, no. 2, 2002, pp. 15767.
[21] M. L. Sichitiu and V. Ramadurai, Localization of Wire-
less Sensor Networks with A Mobile Beacon, Proc. 1st
IEEE Intl. Conf. Mobile Ad Hoc and Sensor Sys., FL,
Oct. 2004, pp. 17483.
12
[22] H. A. F. Oliveira et al., Directed Position Estimation: A
Recursive Localization Approach for Wireless Sensor
Networks, Proc. 14th IEEE Intl. Conf. Comp. Commun.
and Networks, S. R. Thuel, Y. Yang, and E. Park, Eds.
San Diego, CA, Oct. 2005, pp. 55762.
BIOGRAPHIES
A ZZEDINE B OUKERCHE (boukerch@site.uottawa.ca) is a full
professor and holds a Canada Research Chair position at
the University of Ottawa. He is the founding director of the
PARADISE Research Laboratory at the university. Prior to
this, he held a faculty position at the University of North
Texas and worked as a senior scientist at the Simulation
Sciences Division, Metron Corporation, San Diego, Califor-
nia. He was also employed on the faculty of the School of
Computer Science, McGill University, and taught at Poly-
technic of Montreal. He spent a year at the JPL/NASA-Cali-
fornia Institute of Technology where he contributed to a
project centered on the specification and verification of the
software used to control interplanetary spacecraft operated
by JPL/NASA Laboratory. His current research interests
include wireless ad hoc and sensor networks, wireless net-
works, mobile and pervasive computing, wireless multime-
dia, QoS service provisioning, performance evaluation and
modeling of large-scale distributed systems, distributed
computing, large-scale distributed interactive simulation,
and parallel discrete event simulation. He has published
several research papers in these areas. He was the recipient
of the Best Research Paper Award at IEEE/ACM PADS 97
and ACM MobiWac06; of the 3rd National Award for
Telecommunication Software in 1999 for his work on a dis-
tributed security system on mobile phone operations; and
has been nominated for the Best Paper Award at IEEE/ACM
PADS 99 and ACM MSWiM 01. He is a holder of an
Ontario Early Research Excellence Award (previously known
as the Premier of Ontario Research Excellence Award), an
Ontario Distinguished Researcher Award, and a Glinski
Research Excellence Award. He is a co-founder of QShine,
the International Conference on Quality of Service for Wire-
less/Wired Heterogeneous Networks, served as a General
Chair for the 8th ACM/IEEE Symposium on Modeling, Anal-
ysis and Simulation of wireless and mobile systems, and
the 9th ACM/IEEE Symposium on distributed simulation
and real-time application; has been Program Chair for ACM
Workshop on QoS and Security for Wireless and Mobile
Networks, ACM/IFIPS Europar 200, IEEE/SCS Annual Simula-
tion Symposium 02, ACM WWW 02, IEEE MWCN 02,
IEEE/ACM MASCOTS 02, IEEE Wireless Local Networks WLN
0304, IEEE WMAN 0405, and ACM MSWiM 9899;
and has been a Technical Program Committee member of
numerous IEEE and ACM sponsored conferences. He has
served as a Guest Editor for several publications.
ANTONIO A. F. LOUREIRO (loureiro@dcc.ufmg.br) holds a B.Sc.
and an M.Sc. in computer science, both from the Federal
University of Minas Gerais (UFMG), and a Ph.D. in comput-
er science from the University of British Columbia, Canada.
Currently he is an associate professor of computer science
at UFMG, where he leads the research group on wireless
sensor networks. His main research areas are wireless sen-
sor networks, mobile computing, and distributed algo-
rithms.
EDUARDO FREIRE NAKAMURA (eduardo.nakamura@fucapi.br) is
a researcher and full professor at the Center of Research
and Technological Innovation, Brazil. He received his Ph.D.
in computer science from the Federal University of Minas
Gerais, Brazil, in 2007. His research interests include
data/information fusion, distributed algorithms, localization
algorithms, wireless ad hoc and sensor networks, and
mobile and pervasive computing. He has published several
papers in the area of WSNs, and served as a Technical Pro-
gram Committee member of the 2nd Latin American Auto-
nomic Computing Symposium, supported by the IEEE
Computer Society.
H ORACIO A. B. F. O LIVEIRA (horacio@site.uottawa.ca) is a
professor of computer science at Federal University of
Amazonas (UFAM), Brazil. He is currently working toward a
Ph.D. degree in computer science at UFMG) with a partial
doctoral fellowship at the University of Ottawa, Canada.
He holds an M.Sc. in computer science from UFMG and a
B.Sc. in computer science from UFAM. His research inter-
ests include localization and synchronization algorithms,
distributed algorithms, and wireless ad hoc, vehicular, and
sensor networks. He is author of several papers in different
areas of his research interests.
IEEE Wireless Communications December 2007