Comparative analysis of RTSP, FTSP, and TPSN implementations for time synchronization in wireless sensor networks for structural health monitoring (TimeSyncWSN)

Clicks: 7
ID: 285521
2022
Free PDF
Article Quality & Performance Metrics
Overall Quality
Not rated
Combines reader engagement with the AI quality analysis. This article has not been analysed, so there is no overall score — reader engagement is measured and shown alongside.
AI Quality Assessment
Not analyzed
Readership in this journal
Steady

Ranked #3,200 of 3,757 articles by views in Malay Journal

Most read Least read

Bar heights use a square-root scale. Only the 120 most-read articles are drawn; the journal has 3,757 in total.

Mint this article as an NFT
Not yet minted

Create a permanent, verifiable on-chain record of this article on the Scimatic Network. The NFT is held in your Journament account, and you can withdraw it to your own wallet at any time.

5 SUSD one-off · no wallet required
Sign in to mint
Abstract
Civil infrastructure in the Philippines is susceptible to damage caused by a multitude of natural and man-made phenomena such as typhoons, earthquakes, pollution, fires, and the like. As such, it is important to employ Structural Health Monitoring (SHM) techniques such as implementing Wireless Sensor Networks (WSN) to measure and assess structural health with the use of vibration data. One major problem that arises when designing and implementing WSNs is time synchronization across nodes. Time synchronization error between nodes in a WSN can result in inaccurate measurements which would render the network practically useless. Many time synchronization algorithm options for WSNs have not been fully characterized and compared in real-world applications. Thus, Multiple time synchronization algorithms (TPSN, FTSP, and RTSP) were tested in order to characterize each algorithm's balance of accuracy and power consumption. It was found that the distance between nodes had little impact on the performance of all algorithms. For FTSP and RTSP, the error stayed within 1.5 ms for all tested ranges. For TPSN, the error stayed within 0.7 ms for all tested ranges. In terms of hop distance, the error for both FTSP and TPSN grew around 1 ms per hop. On the other hand, the error with RTSP did not seem to grow with the number of hops. Additionally, FTSP consumed the least amount of current using 46 mA, while TPSN and RTSP consumed around 50 mA and 51 mA respectively.
Reference Key
persistent_1760655848_68f179e8f1a5b Use this key to autocite in the manuscript while using SciMatic Manuscript Manager or Thesis Manager
Authors Sih, Rainer Nielsen Victoria
Journal Malay Journal
Year 2022
DOI
DOI not found
URL
https://animorepository.dlsu.edu.ph/etdb_comtech/7
Keywords Keywords not found

Citations

No citations found. To add a citation, contact the admin at info@scimatic.org

Comments

No comments yet. Be the first to comment on this article.