skip to main content
10.1145/1460412.1460442acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagessensysConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Model-based monitoring for early warning flood detection

Authors Info & Claims
Published:05 November 2008Publication History

ABSTRACT

Predictive environmental sensor networks provide complex engineering and systems challenges. These systems must withstand the event of interest, remain functional over long time periods when no events occur, cover large geographical regions of interest to the event, and support the variety of sensor types needed to detect the phenomenon. Prediction of the phenomenon on the network complicates the system further, requiring additional computation on themicrocontrollers and utilizing prediction models that are not typically designed for sensor networks. This paper describes a system architecture and deployment to meet the design requirements and to allow model-driven control, thereby optimizing the prediction capability of the system. We explore the application of river flood prediction using this architecture, describing our work on a centralized form of the prediction model, network implementation, component testing and infrastructure development in Honduras, deployment on a river in Massachusetts, and results of the field experiments. Our system uses only a small number of nodes to cover basins of 1000-10000 square km2 using an unique heterogeneous communication structure to provide real-time sensed data, incorporating self-monitoring for failure, and adapting measurement schedules to capture events of interest.

References

  1. Aerocomm. AC4790 900 MHz OEM Transceivers User Manual, 1.3 edition.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. N. K. Ajami, H. Gupta, T. Wagener, and S. Sorooshian. Calibration of a semi-distributed hydrologic model for stream ow estimation along a river system. Journal of Hydrology, 298:112--135, October 2004.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  3. ALERT Systems Organization. Alert history. http://www.alertsystems.org.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. E. Basha. Interview with COPECO officials in La Masica, Honduras, January 2004.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. G. E. P. Box and G. M. Jenkins. Time series analysis: forecasting and control. Holden-Day, San Francisco, CA, USA, 1976. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  6. R. Bras and I. Rodriguez-Iturbe. Random Functions and Hydrology. Dover Publications, Inc, Mineola, NY, USA, 1993.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. A. Brath, A. Montanari, and E. Toth. Neural networks and non-parametric methods for improving real-time flood forecasting through conceptual hydrological models. Hydrology and Earth System Sciences, 6(4):627--639, 2002.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  8. Z. Butler, P. Corke, R. Peterson, and D. Rus. From robots to animals: Virtual fences for controlling cattle. Int. J. Rob. Res., 25(5-6):485--508, 2006. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  9. M. Castillo-Effen, D. H. Quintela, R. Jordan, W. Westhoff, and W. Moreno. Wireless sensor networks for flash-flood alerting. In Proceedings of the 5th IEEE International Caracas Conference on Devices, Circuits and Systems, pages 142--146. IEEE, Nov 2004.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  10. Center for Hydrometeorology & Remote Sensing, University of California, Irvine. Hydrologic predictions - on-going activities. http://chrs.web.uci.edu/research/hydrologic_predictions/activities07.html.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. R. Chowdhury. Consensus seasonal flood forecasts and warning response system (FFWRS): an alternate for nonstructural flood management in Bangladesh. Environmental Management, 35:716--725, May 27 2005.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  12. M. DeMaria and J. Kaplan. An updated statistical hurricane intensity prediction scheme (SHIPS) for the atlantic and eastern north pacific basins. Weather and Forecasting, 14(3):326--337, 1999.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  13. Federal Communications Commission: Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau. Emergency alert system. http://www.fcc.gov/pshs/eas/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  14. B. D. Finnerty, M. B. Smith, D.-J. Seo, V. Koren, and G. E. Moglen. Space-time scale sensitivity of the Sacramento model to radar-gage precipitation inputs. Journal of Hydrology, 203:21--38, December 1997.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  15. K. P. Georgakakos. Analytical results for operational flash flood guidance. Journal of Hydrology, 317:81--103, February 2006.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  16. R. Guy, B. Greenstein, J. Hicks, R. Kapur, N. Ramanathan, T. Schoellhammer, T. Stathapoulos, K. Weeks, K. Chang, L. Girod, and D. Estrin. Experiences with the extensible sensing system ESS. In Proceedings of CENS Technical Report #60. CENS, March 2006.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  17. T. M. Hopson and P. J. Webster. Operational short-term flood forecasting for Bangladesh: application of ECMWF ensemble precipitation forecasts. Geophysical Research Abstracts, 8, 2006.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  18. F. Hossain, N. Katiyar, Y. Hong, and A. Wolf. The emerging role of satellite rainfall data in improving the hydro-political situation of flood monitoring in the under-developed regions of the world. Journal of Natural Hazards, 43:199--210, March 9 2007.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  19. W. Hu, V. N. Tran, N. Bulusu, C. T. Chou, S. Jha, and A. Taylor. The design and evaluation of a hybrid sensor network for cane-toad monitoring. In IPSN'05: Proceedings of the 4th International Symposium on Information Processing in Sensor Networks, pages 503--508. IEEE, April 2005. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  20. D. Hughes, P. Greenwood, G. Blair, G. Coulson, F. Pappenberger, P. Smith, and K. Beven. An intelligent and adaptable grid-based flood monitoring and warning system. In Proceedings of the 5th UK eScience All Hands Meeting, 2006.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  21. V. Y. Ivanov, E. R. Vivoni, R. L. Bras, and D. Entekhabi. Preserving high-resolution surface and rainfall data in operational-scale basin hydrology: a fully-distributed physically-based approach. Journal of Hydrology, 298:80--111, October 2004.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  22. G. H. Jørgensen and J. Høst-Madsen. Development of a flood forecasting system in Bangladesh. In Operational Water Management Conference, 1997.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  23. P. Juang, H. Oki, Y. Wang, M. Martonosi, L. S. Peh, and D. Rubenstein. Energy-efficient computing for wildlife tracking: design tradeoffs and early experiences with ZebraNet. In ASPLOS '02: Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Architectural Support for Programming Languages and Operating Systems, pages 96--107, New York, NY, USA, 2002. ACM Press. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  24. T. N. Krishnamurti, C. M. Kishtawal, Z. Zhang, T. LaRow, D. Bachiochi, E. Williford, S. Gadgil, and S. Surendran. Multimodel ensemble forecasts for weather and seasonal climate. Journal of Climate, 13(23):4196--4216, 2000.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  25. A. Mainwaring, D. Culler, J. Polastre, R. Szewczyk, and J. Anderson. Wireless sensor networks for habitat monitoring. In WSNA '02: Proceedings of the 1st ACM International Workshop on Wireless Sensor Networks and Applications, pages 88--97, New York, NY, USA, 2002. ACM Press. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  26. N. Oceanic and A. A. N. W. Service. Distributed model intercomparison project. http://www.nws.noaa.gov/oh/hrl/dmip/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  27. N. Oceanic and A. A. N. W. Service. Hl distributed modeling research. http://www.nws.noaa.gov/oh/hrl/distmodel/abstracts.htm#abstract_7.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  28. Phillips. LPC241x User Manual, 2 edition, July 2006.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  29. N. Ramanathan, L. Balzano, D. Estrin, M. Hansen, T. Harmon, J. Jay, W. Kaiser, and G. Sukhatme. Designing wireless sensor networks as a shared resource for sustainable development. In ICTD '06: Proceedings of the International Conference on Information and Communication Technologies and Development, pages 256--265, May 2006.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  30. S. Reed, V. Koren, M. Smith, Z. Zhang, F. Moreda, D.-J. Seo, and D. Participants. Overall distributed model intercomparison project results. Journal of Hydrology, 298:27--60, October 2004.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  31. M. Schwager, C. Detweiler, I. Vasilescu, D. M. Anderson, and D. Rus. Data-driven identification of group dynamics for motion prediction and control. Journal of Field Robotics, 25(6-7):305--324, 2008. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  32. L. Selavo, A. Wood, Q. Cao, T. Sookoor, H. Liu, A. Srinivasan, Y. Wu, W. Kang, J. Stankovic, D. Young, and J. Porter. Luster: wireless sensor network for environmental research. In SenSys '07: Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Embedded Networked Sensor Systems, pages 103--116, New York, NY, USA, 2007. ACM. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  33. R. R. Shrestha and F. Nestmann. River water level prediction using physically based and data driven models. In Zerger, A. and Argent, R. M. (eds) MODSIM 2005 International Congress on Modeling and Simulation, pages 1894--1900. Modeling and Simulation Society of Australia and New Zealand, December 2005.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  34. P. Sikka, P. Corke, P. Valencia, C. Crossman, D. Swain, and G. Bishop-Hurley. Wireless adhoc sensor and actuator networks on the farm. In IPSN '06: Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Information Processing in Sensor Networks, pages 492--499, New York, NY, USA, 2006. ACM Press. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  35. M. B. Smith, D.-J. Seo, V. I. Koren, S. M. Reed, Z. Zhang, Q. Duan, F. Moreda, and S. Cong. The distributed model intercomparison project (DMIP): motivation and experiment design. Journal of Hydrology, 298:4--26, October 2004.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  36. D. P. Solomatine, M. Maskey, and D. L. Shrestha. Instance-based learning compared to other data-driven methods in hydrological forecasting. Hydrological Processes, 22:275--287, 2008.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  37. D. P. Solomatine and M. B. Siek. Modular learning models in forecasting natural phenomena. Neural Networks, 19(2):215--224, 2006. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  38. D. P. Solomatine and Y. Xue. M5 model trees and neural networks: Application to ood forecasting in the upper reach of the Huai River in China. Journal of Hydrologic Engineering, 9(6):491--501, November/December 2004.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  39. B. Thorstensen, T. Syversen, T.-A. Bjørnvold, and T. Walseth. Electronic shepherd - a low-cost, low-bandwidth, wireless network system. In MobiSys'04: Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Mobile Systems, Applications, and Services, pages 245--255, New York, NY, USA, 2004. ACM Press. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  40. G. Tolle, J. Polastre, R. Szewczyk, D. Culler, N. Turner, K. Tu, S. Burgess, T. Dawson, P. Buonadonna, D. Gay, and W. Hong. A macroscope in the redwoods. In SenSys'05: Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Embedded Networked Sensor Systems, pages 51--63, New York, NY, USA, 2005. ACM Press. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  41. tRIBS Development Team. tRIBS HydroMet data. http://www.ees.nmt.edu/vivoni/tribs/weather.html.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  42. J. A. Vrugt, B. O. Nualláin, B. A. Robinson, W. Bouten, S. C. Dekker, and P. M. Sloot. Application of parallel computing to stocahstic parameter estimation in environmental models. Computers and Geosciences, 32:1139--1155, October 2006.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  43. P. J. Webster and R. Grossman. Forecasting river discharge into Bangladesh on short, medium and long time scales. Climate Forecasting Applications in Bangladesh, January 2003. Online at http://cfab.eas.gatech.edu/cfab/ Documents/InfoSheets/CFAB_forecast.pdf.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  44. G. Werner-Allen, K. Lorincz, J. Johnson, J. Lees, and M. Welsh. Fidelity and yield in a volcano monitoring sensor network. In OSDI '06: Proceedings of the 7th Symposium on Operating Systems Design and Implementation, pages 381--396, Berkeley, CA, USA, 2006. USENIX Association. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  45. P. Zhang, C. M. Sadler, S. A. Lyon, and M. Martonosi. Hardware design experiences in ZebraNet. In SenSys'04: Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Embedded Networked Sensor Systems, pages 227--238, New York, NY, USA, 2004. ACM Press. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library

Index Terms

  1. Model-based monitoring for early warning flood detection

              Recommendations

              Comments

              Login options

              Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

              Sign in
              • Published in

                cover image ACM Conferences
                SenSys '08: Proceedings of the 6th ACM conference on Embedded network sensor systems
                November 2008
                468 pages
                ISBN:9781595939906
                DOI:10.1145/1460412

                Copyright © 2008 ACM

                Permission 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. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

                Publisher

                Association for Computing Machinery

                New York, NY, United States

                Publication History

                • Published: 5 November 2008

                Permissions

                Request permissions about this article.

                Request Permissions

                Check for updates

                Qualifiers

                • research-article

                Acceptance Rates

                Overall Acceptance Rate174of867submissions,20%

              PDF Format

              View or Download as a PDF file.

              PDF

              eReader

              View online with eReader.

              eReader