4.7 Article

2.4 GHz RF Received Signal Strength Based Node Separation in WSN Monitoring Infrastructure for Millet and Rice Vegetation

期刊

IEEE SENSORS JOURNAL
卷 21, 期 16, 页码 18298-18306

出版社

IEEE-INST ELECTRICAL ELECTRONICS ENGINEERS INC
DOI: 10.1109/JSEN.2021.3083552

关键词

Agriculture; Sensors; Vegetation mapping; Wireless sensor networks; Attenuation; Monitoring; Forestry; IoT; path loss coefficient; IEEE 802; 15; 4; precision agriculture; WSN

资金

  1. Department of Research and Development, Agro Glen Systems (AGS), Gwalior, Madhya Pradesh, India [LIC41/20190518/JH-IITDHN/03]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The proposal develops a path loss model by analyzing the effects of vegetation height and density on signal strength, ensuring network stability by controlling the separation between sensor nodes. This model can be used as a benchmark for network development and comparison in precision agriculture, providing valuable insights for IoT network architects and researchers.
The WSN monitoring infrastructure developed for a vegetative environment may encounter network disconnectivity due to node isolation if the node deployment strategy has not accounted for the change in vegetation density at different crop development stages. This proposal develops a path loss model by analyzing the effects of vegetation height and density on signal strength between two sensor nodes communicating under the IEEE802.15.4 Wireless standard. For this, the path loss coefficients have been analyzed for 2.4 GHz RF signals through measurement campaigns at various development stages of Rice and Millet crop. The proposed path loss model controls the separation between sensor nodes to achieve a distribution that is resistant to network disconnectivity caused by node isolation. The acquired database and formulated path loss model can be used by IoT network architects and researchers in the field of precision agriculture as a benchmark for network development and comparison with the signal strength in other crops.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据