arXiv:1611.07397v1 [cs.NI] 22 Nov 2016

Non-linear Barrier Coverage using Mobile Wireless
Sensors
Ashutosh Baheti

Arobinda Gupta

Dept. of Computer Sc. & Engineering
Indian Institute of Technology, Kharagpur
Kharagpur, WB-721302, India
Email: ashutosh.baheti95@gmail.com

Dept. of Computer Sc. & Engineering
Indian Institute of Technology, Kharagpur
Kharagpur, WB-721302, India
Email: agupta@cse.iitkgp.ernet.in

Abstract—A belt region is said to be k-barrier covered by a
set of sensors if all paths crossing the width of the belt region
intersect the sensing regions of at least k sensors. Barrier coverage
can be achieved from a random initial deployment of mobile
sensors by suitably relocating the sensors to form a barrier.
Reducing the movement of the sensors is important in such
scenarios due to the energy constraints of sensor devices. In
this paper, we propose a centralized algorithm which achieves
1-barrier coverage by forming a non-linear barrier from a
random initial deployment of sensors in a belt. The algorithm
uses a novel idea of physical behavior of chains along with
the concept of virtual force. Formation of non-linear barrier
reduces the movement of the sensors needed as compared to
linear barriers. Detailed simulation results are presented to show
that the proposed algorithm achieves barrier coverage with less
movement of sensors compared to other existing algorithms in
the literature.
Keywords—sensor network, barrier coverage, virtual force

I.

I NTRODUCTION

A Wireless Sensor Network (WSN) consists of a set of
sensor nodes. Each node can sense some physical parameters,
and has limited computation and communication capability.
The data sensed by the sensor nodes is usually transmitted
to a central base station using a wireless network connecting
the sensors for further processing. Mobile Wireless Sensor
Networks (MWSNs) [1], [2], [3] are a class of wireless sensor
networks in which some or all of the sensor nodes are mobile.
Wireless sensor networks have been used for a wide variety
of applications such as habitat monitoring, target tracking,
intruder detection etc.
Many different problems have been addressed on wireless
sensor networks, such as routing, topology control, localization, coverage, data aggregation etc. In this work, we focus
on the coverage problem in sensor networks, which addresses
the problem of covering a given area or set of objects using
sensors. Several different variations of the problem exist depending on the nature of coverage required. As an example,
Area Coverage requires that all points in a given area are
within the sensing field of at least one sensor. In contrast, Point
Coverage requires that only a given set of points within an area
be covered by at least one sensor. Many other definitions of
coverage exist such as perimeter coverage, barrier coverage,
sweep coverage, path coverage etc. [4].
In this paper, we focus on Barrier Coverage in sensor
networks. A target belt region provides strong k-barrier cov-

erage if all crossing paths (a path crossing the width of the
belt region, originating from one parallel boundary of the belt
region and terminating at the other) intersect the sensing region
of at least k distinct sensors. In the rest of this paper, we will
refer to strong barrier coverage as just barrier coverage. Barrier
coverage has many important applications such as intrusion
detection along international borders, identifying spread of
lethal chemicals around chemical factories, detecting potential
sabotage in gas pipelines etc. [5], [6].
Static WSNs may not always work well in barrier coverage
applications for different reasons. In many applications, sensors cannot be placed exactly at the locations desired due to
deployment constraints, and hence sensors may be randomly
deployed around the area. Such applications can benefit from
mobile WSNs if the deployed sensors can autonomously move
after deployment to achieve the desired barrier coverage.
Mobile sensors can also help in scenarios where one or more
sensors fail, thereby breaking barrier coverage. In such scenarios, some of the nearby sensors can readjust their positions
to recreate the barrier. However, designing algorithms that
utilize mobility efficiently is a challenging problem. Keeping
the energy constraint of battery-powered sensor devices in
mind, algorithms for mobility control should be able to achieve
barrier coverage with low movement of the sensors.
There exist many works on formation of barrier coverage using mobile sensors. Some of these works propose
centralized solutions for deploying sensors to achieve barrier
coverage [7], [8], [6]. Centralized solutions are good since
all the information is available at a central station. Hence,
all computations regarding movement can be done centrally
and only the final locations are sent to the sensors which then
move to those locations. However, maintaining the information
centrally incurs some overhead. To address this problem,
distributed approaches in which sensors locally coordinate
to adjust and move to their final positions have also been
proposed [9], [10], [11], [12], [13]. However, most of these
solutions (centralized or distributed) try to organize all sensors
in a straight line to achieve barrier coverage. While a linear
barrier is optimal with respect to the number of sensors needed
to create a barrier, it can cause large redundant movement to
move randomly deployed sensors to a linear configuration.
In this paper, we propose a centralized algorithm for 1barrier coverage which, given a random deployment of sensors in a belt, creates a non-linear barrier of sensors that
provides barrier coverage of the belt region. The proposed

algorithm views the barrier as a chain of sensors whose sensing
disks overlap with each other, and uses some novel ideas
of physical behavior of a chain along with the concept of
virtual force to move the sensors to achieve barrier coverage.
Detailed simulation results are presented to show that the
proposed algorithm achieves barrier coverage from random
initial deployments with both less average displacement and
less maximum displacement of the sensors compared to other
existing algorithms in the literature.
The rest of the paper is organized as follows. Section
II discusses some related works. The problem statement is
defined in Section III, Section IV describes the centralized
algorithm and evaluates its performance. Finally, Section V
concludes the work.
II.

R ELATED W ORKS

Barrier coverage has been widely studied in WSNs [14],
[15]. Saipulla et al. [6] suggested an approach to relocate
sensors from an initial randomized line-based deployment
model to replicate a scenario of sensors dropped from an
aircraft. The work in [8] studied the problem of relocating
mobile sensors with limited mobility in order to save energy.
Bhattacharya et al. [7] proposed and solved an optimization problem to calculate an optimal movement strategy for
barrier coverage on a circular region. All these approaches
are centralized. Distributed approaches to barrier coverage
formation are addressed in [12], [13], [9], [10], [16]. Kong
et al. [12] used the concept of virtual forces to solve the kbarrier coverage. Silvestri [13] presented a novel approach
MobiBar that outperforms the algorithm of [12] in k-barrier
coverage. Cheng and Savkin [10] presented a decentralized
approach of creating 1-barrier coverage between any two prespecified landmarks in the belt region. Shen et al. [9] suggested
a centralized CBarrier and a distributed DBarrier(based on
virtual forces) algorithm that create a barrier after an random
initial deployment. Eftekhari et al. [16] presented distributed
algorithms for barrier coverage using sensor relocation. All
of the algorithms proposed in the literature (except DBarrier
whose performance has been shown to be poorer than CBarrier) try to rearrange sensors on a straight line to form a linear
barrier. Ban et al. [17] defined a special type of non-linear
k-barrier coverage called grid barrier that is formed out of
linear segments coinciding with grid boundaries in the region;
however, the algorithm presented for 1-barrier coverage only
(named CBGB) still forms linear barrier only. A linear barrier
uses the minimum possible number of sensors, but causes more
movement of the sensors to arrange them along a straight
line. When some extra sensors (over the minimum number
required) are available, forming a non-linear barrier can reduce
the movement of the sensors and consequently cause less
energy usage. Ban et al. [17] also presented a more general
k-barrier coverage algorithm that creates a non-linear grid
barrier by breaking the region into subregions, forming linear
barriers in each subregions, and then forming vertical isolation
barriers between subregions to connect the horizontal barriers.
However, the algorithm uses very large number of redundant
sensors, and for 1-barrier coverage (k = 1), provides no
significant advantage over the CBGB algorithm. The algorithm
proposed in this paper differs from the other algorithms (except
DBarrier [9]) in that it finds truly non-linear barriers which

reduces the movement of the sensors. The number of redundant
sensors used is also low.
III.

P ROBLEM F ORMULATION

We assume a rectangular belt region of length L and width
W , with L  W . A set of N mobile sensors with unique IDs
are initially randomly deployed in this belt region. Each sensor
has a sensing range Rs and thus can cover a circular area of
radius Rs centered around the position where the sensor is
placed. We assume that a sensor knows its own location.
The displacement of a sensor is defined as the Euclidean
distance between the initial and final location of the sensor.
As noted earlier, a centralized algorithm can compute the final
location of the sensors and then the sensors can move to
that location directly. Thus, the goal of the centralized barrier
formation algorithm is to relocate the sensors to form 1-barrier
coverage over the belt region while minimizing the average and
maximum displacement of the sensors.
IV.

C ENTRALIZED A LGORITHM FOR BARRIER
F ORMATION

We first describe the intuition behind the proposed algorithm. A more formal description of the algorithm is given
next.
A barrier can be viewed as a physical chain where each
sensor, with its imaginary sensing disk, is analogous to a
circular chain link. In a physical chain, if one chain link is
pulled, it will exert a force on all chain links connected to it,
and a chain link connected to it will move when the distance
between them becomes maximum, i.e., when their rims start
touching. We primarily use this simple property in designing
the algorithm. Some of the terms we will use to describe the
operation of the algorithm are described below.
•

Chain Link: A chain link in the algorithm refers to a
sensor with sensing radius Rs . We will use the terms
sensor and chain link interchangeably in the rest of this
paper. The leftmost sensor in the belt region is called
the left chain link. Similarly, the rightmost sensor is
called the right chain link. In case there are multiple
leftmost (rightmost) sensors, any one sensor is chosen
as the left (right) chain link.

•

Connected Chain Links: Two chain links are said to
be connected if the sensing regions of the corresponding sensors intersect. Note that the distance between
the centers of two connected chain links cannot be
more than 2Rs . If one chain link is pulled, a chain
link connected to it will feel a force when the distance
between their centers becomes equal to 2Rs .

•

Chain Graph: Consider the undirected graph G with
each chain link as a node and an edge added between
two nodes if the corresponding chain links are connected. A chain graph is a connected component of
G. The chain graph that contains the left chain link is
called the left chain graph. Similarly, the chain graph
containing the right chain link is called the right chain
graph.

Note that though a distance less than 2Rs between the positions of two sensors implies that the sensors are connected by
the above definitions, sometimes we will delete a connection
even if the distance is less than 2Rs to work with a subgraph
of the chain graph. Such deletions will be clearly specified
while describing the algorithm.
Given the above virtual constructs, the main idea of the
algorithm can be described as follows. Each chain graph, by
virtue of its connectedness, can provide barrier coverage for a
part of the belt region (the part between the left boundary of
its leftmost chain link and the right boundary of its rightmost
chain link). The algorithm tries to extend the barrier coverage
to the entire belt region by merging smaller chain graphs into
larger ones, until a large enough chain graph is formed that
spans across the length of the belt. In order to merge two chain
graphs, one special chain link of one chain graph is pulled
towards a chain link of the other chain graph in steps, pulling
the other chain links along with it until the two chains merge.
We next describe this technique in more detail.

2)

3)

A. Merging Chain Graphs
Let C denote the set of all chain links (sensors). Let CG
denote the set of chain links in a chain graph G. For any chain
link u ∈ CG and v ∈ C \ CG , we define the force f (u, v)
exerted on u by v as
α
f (u, v) =
u ∈ CG , v ∈ C \ CG
dist(u, v)
where dist(u, v) is the Euclidean distance between u and v.
Note that f represents the attractive force between two chain
links in two chain graphs, with the force becoming stronger
as the distance between the chain links decreases. α is simply
a scaling parameter.
For a chain link u in CG , let
F (u) = max f (u, v)
v

u ∈ CG , ∀ v ∈ C \ CG

denote the maximum force exerted on u by a chain link in
another chain graph. Then the dominant point of the chain
graph G is defined as the chain link dG ∈ CG such that F (dG )
is the maximum among all F (u), u ∈ CG . The chain link in
a chain graph X 6= G that exerts the maximum force on dG
is defined as the co-dominant point of G. If there are more
than one pair of dominant and co-dominant points with the
maximum force then we choose the pair which has a sensor
with the lowest ID.
For merging two chain graphs, we compute the dominant
and the co-dominant points of the chain graphs and then pull
the dominant point towards the co-dominant point using the
attractive force defined, pulling the other chain links in the
chain graph along with it. The movements of a chain link due
to the attractive force as well as when a connected chain link
is pulled follows the usual laws of physics. The algorithm for
merging chain graphs works in four phases:
1)

Initialization Phase: In this phase, the algorithm first
identifies all the chain graphs based on the initial
locations of the sensors. For each chain graph, a DFS
spanning tree is constructed starting from an arbitrary
node, and all edges not in the tree are deleted from

4)

the chain graph. Removing an edge between two
chain links implies that they are not considered as
connected (even if their sensing regions overlap) in
the rest of the algorithm and are not constrained to
move together in any way. The DFS tree helps in
identifying long paths in chain graphs that will be
used to flatten the chain graphs later. At the end of
this stage, all chain graphs to be considered are trees.
We will refer to the DFS tree corresponding to a chain
graph as a chain tree in the rest of this section.
Left-Attach Phase: In this phase, the left chain link
is pulled horizontally towards the left boundary of
the belt until it touches the left boundary. Note that
pulling the left chain link may pull other chain links
in the left chain graph. Once the left chain link
touches the left boundary, it is allowed to only slide
along the width of the belt but is not allowed to
move away from the left boundary in the rest of the
algorithm.
Right-Attach Phase: This phase is similar to the
Left-Attach Phase, only difference being the right
chain link is moved horizontally towards the right
boundary of the belt in this case.
Barrier-Formation Phase: This phase actually creates the barrier by merging chain graphs. The dominant point and co-dominant points are first determined for all chain graphs. The algorithm then iterates over the following step, with every iterative step
corresponding logically to a time step τ of movement
defined suitably.
a) One chain graph G is picked up randomly
from the set of chain graphs.
b) The dominant point dG of G is moved towards the co-dominant point of G for duration τ (or until it touches the co-dominant
point, whichever is earlier) following the
laws of physics depending on the force f
between them. Note that this may move other
chain links in G, again following the laws of
Physics.
c) If dG does not touch the co-dominant point
after the movement, the force f between dG
and the co-dominant point is recomputed (as
it may have changed due to the change in distance between them), and the algorithm goes
to the next iteration. If dG touches the codominant point (the two chain graphs have
merged), then the dominant and co-dominant
point of all the chain graphs are recomputed
before going to the next iteration.
This phase terminates when the merging of the chain
graphs causes a barrier to be formed. Thus, at each
step of this phase, one chain graph is moved slightly.
Note that moving one arbitrary chain graph completely in one step to cause two chain graphs to
merge may cause a lot of redundant movement unless
the proper chain graph is chosen; the random choice
reduces this redundant movement in case of a bad
choice of chain graph.

Note that a chain graph can potentially cover a larger part
of the belt if more nodes in it have degree two, as higher degree

nodes in a chain graph cause more redundant nodes that do
not contribute in extending the barrier. Therefore, at each step
of moving the dominant point, a flattening logic is applied to
the chain graph that flattens the chain to make it longer.
B. Flattening Chain Graphs
The flattening logic is applied to the chain tree formed
from the chain graph. For any chain tree, the dominant point
of the chain tree is defined as the root chain link of the tree.
For any chain tree (except the left and the right chain trees) the
longest path from the root chain link in the chain tree is first
computed. This path is called the flatten path. The following
step are applied after each step of the Barrier Formation phase.
The flatten path is traversed starting from the root chain
link until the first node with degree greater than two (branching) is found. Let this node be called the current chain link
c. Let Nc denote the set of chain links connected to c and
Sc denote the set of chain links connected to c but are not
on the flatten path. For every chain link u ∈ Sc , the chain
link v (v ∈ Nc \ Sc ) closest to u in the flatten path is
found, and a small fixed attractive force (taken to be β × f ,
0 < β << 1, where f is the force between the dominant and
the co-dominant point of the chain graph) is exerted upon u
towards v to make u move towards v. If u touches v as a
result of this movement, an edge is added in the chain graph
between u and v and the edge between c and v is deleted
(even if their sensing regions overlap). Note that this extends
the flatten path by one sensor (replacing the edge (c, v) in the
flatten path with the edge (c, u) and (u, v)). The change in
edges still maintains a tree.
Thus, as the dominant point of a chain graph moves
towards another chain graph in successive steps, the application
of the above logic brings more and more nodes into the flatten
path, eventually causing all chain links not present in this
flatten path to collapse on it. This, along with the movement
of the dominant point which pulls the chain links on the flatten
path, causes a chain to become longer with sufficient number
of steps, thus allowing a single chain to form a larger part of
the barrier. Note that for a long enough belt region (large L),
if the merging step and the flattening logic is applied on a
chain graph long enough, the graph will be transformed into a
linear chain with all nodes having degree two (except the end
nodes that are with degree one), with the distance between the
centers of two connected chain links becoming maximum.
An example of the flattening logic is shown in Figure 1.
Figure 1a shows the initial state of a chain tree. The green
chain link denotes the dominant point, with the red arrow
depicting the direction of the force exerted. The chain links on
the flatten path computed from the root chain link (dominant
point) are shown in blue. As shown in Figure 1b, a node
connected to the the first node on the flatten path (starting
from the root) with degree greater than two is moved towards
the flatten path. When this node meets the flatten path after
sufficient number of steps, the flatten path is changed as shown
in Figure 1c. This adds one more sensor to the flatten path. At
later steps, the next chain link on the flatten path with degree
greater than two is chosen and a chain link connected to it is
moved towards and finally added to the flatten path (Figures
1d and 1e). The next chain link on this new flatten path with

(a)

(b)

(c)

(d)

(e)

(f)

Fig. 1: Example of the flattening logic

degree greater than two is then moved towards the flatten path
(Figure 1f). This process is repeated with each step to flatten
the chain tree as much as needed. Note that as the dominant
point moves because of the force exerted on it, the chain links
on the flatten path are pulled along with it, causing the chain
to straighten out and form a longer barrier.
For the left and the right chain tree, the flatten path is fixed
to be the path from the dominant point to the left and the right
chain links respectively. The rest of the logic remains the same.
This is done because of the special constraint on the leftmost
and the rightmost sensors. The pseudo code for the flattening
logic is given in Algorithm 1. More details are omitted because
of space constraints.
Figure 2 graphically shows the complete algorithm running
on an example scenario that is generated by simulating the
algorithm. The example scenario has a belt region of length
50m and width 8m. It has 65 uniformly randomly distributed
mobile sensors each having a sensing radius of 0.5m. The
color coding of the sensors is the same as in Figure 1. After the
Initialization Phase, the sensor positions are as shown in Figure
2a. As seen in the figure, only small chain graphs exist spread
all over the belt region, with no discernible parts of the barrier.
Figure 2b shows the state after the Left-Attach Phase and
Right-Attach Phase. Dominant points for all the chain graphs
are calculated and are pulled towards their corresponding codominant points, pulling the chains with them. We can also
observe some merged chain graphs compared to Figure 2a.
After few steps in the simulation, we can see larger chain
graphs in the belt region formed gradually as shown in Figure
2c and Figure 2d. It can be seen that there are only two chain

Algorithm 1 Flattening Algorithm
1:
2:
3:
4:
5:
6:
7:
8:
9:
10:
11:
12:
13:
14:
15:
16:
17:
18:

function FLATTEN(chain graph G, chain link root)
Compute flatten path P from root
current = root
while degree of current ≤ 2 do
current = next node after current on P
end while
Sc = set of neighbor nodes of current that are not on
P
for each u ∈ Sc do
v = neighbor node of current closest to u on P
apply force f on u towards v to move u
if distance between u and v ≤ 2Rs then
delete edge (current, v) from G
add edge (u, v) to G
P = P ∪ {(u, v), (current, u)} − (current, v)
break
end if
end for
end function

(a)

(b)

(c)

(d)

(e)

(f)

Fig. 2: Example of 1-barrier formation

graphs remaining (left and right chain graphs) in Figure 2e
which then combine to form the final barrier as shown in
Figure 2f. Note that the final barrier is non-linear and some of
the sensors are still redundant.
The following theorem can be proved for the correctness
of the algorithm; we omit the proof here due to lack of space.
Theorem 1: For a belt region of length L and sensors with
sensing radius Rs , the proposed algorithm always terminates
with a strong barrier coverage if the number of sensors is
L
greater than or equal to d 2R
e.
s
C. Performance Evaluation
The centralized algorithm is simulated using the pymunk1
(python physics simulation library) and pygame2 (python game
development library used for visualizing sensor movements).
Each sensor is modeled as a point rigid body in a gravity
free environment. The connections between chain links are
are modelled as slide joints. A slide joint is like an imaginary
rod between two ends, which can keep the ends from getting
too far apart but will allow them to get closer to each other.
The constraints for the leftmost and the rightmost sensors are
modelled as Groove Joints. The anchor point in the groove
joint can slide on a specified line, which helps the leftmost and
the rightmost sensors to slide on the left and right boundary
when required. Pymunk allows us to apply forces on mobile
rigid bodies and can simulate the results in time steps. The
coordinates from pymunk simulation space are used in pygame
to draw sensors and the connections between them.
The proposed algorithm is compared with two existing
algorithms, the CBarrier algorithm proposed by Shen et al.
[9], and the CBGB algorithm proposed by Ban et al. [17].
The CBarrier algorithm is chosen as the DBarrier algorithm
proposed in the same work is the only one that forms a truly
non-linear barrier, and it has been shown that CBarrier has
a better performance than DBarrier. The CBGB algorithm is
chosen as it has been shown to find a near-optimal movement
strategy for linear barrier formation. We simulate both algorithms and measure the average and maximum displacement of
a sensor. It should be noted that the algorithm can be centrally
executed given the initial locations of the sensors and only
final locations can be sent to the sensors directly without the
need of sensors to make any intermediate movement.
A belt of dimensions 50m × 8m is taken, with varying
number of sensors. The value of the sensing radius Rs is
taken as 0.5m. Note that these parameter values imply that a
minimum of 50 sensors are needed to provide barrier coverage
(when a linear barrier is formed). The results reported are
the average of running the algorithms on 100 random initial
deployments. The results are shown in Figure 3.
The results indicate that the proposed algorithm outperforms both CBarrier and CBGB algorithms with respect to
both the average and maximum displacement of a sensor.
In particular, the maximum displacement of the proposed
algorithm is significantly better than both the algorithms. As
the number of sensors are increased, the performance of the
1 http://pymunk.readthedocs.org/en/latest/
2 http://www.pygame.org/

R EFERENCES
[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]
[5]

[6]

[7]

(a) Average displacement
[8]

[9]

[10]

[11]

[12]

[13]

(b) Maximum displacement

Fig. 3: Average and maximum displacement of a sensor

[14]

[15]
[16]

algorithm improves as more and more redundant sensors are
available for local flattening and merging of chain graphs,
thereby reducing the movement required.
[17]

V.

C ONCLUSION

In this paper, we have presented a centralized algorithm
to form a barrier from a random initial deployment using
mobile sensors. The algorithm uses some novel techniques of
viewing a barrier as a chain and applying laws of physics to
create non-linear barriers that reduce the movement of sensors.
Simulation results indicate that the algorithm outperforms
other existing algorithms in terms of average and maximum
displacement even with a small number of redundant sensors.
The work can be extended further to investigate the design
of distributed algorithms for the problem and algorithms for
localized maintenance of the barrier after failures using similar
techniques.

G. Wang, G. Cao, and T. La Porta, “Movement-assisted sensor deployment,” IEEE Transactions on Mobile Computing, vol. 5, no. 6, pp.
640–652, 2006.
K. Ma, Y. Zhang, and W. Trappe, “Managing the mobility of a
mobile sensor network using network dynamics,” IEEE Transactions
on Parallel and Distributed Systems, vol. 19, no. 1, pp. 106–120, 2008.
N. Bartolini, T. Calamoneri, T. La Porta, and S. Silvestri, “Autonomous
deployment of heterogeneous mobile sensors,” IEEE Transactions on
Mobile Computing, vol. 10, no. 6, pp. 753–766, 2011.
B. Wang, “Coverage problems in sensor networks: A survey,” ACM
Computing Surveys, vol. 43, no. 4, pp. 32:1–32:53, 2011.
A. Chen, S. Kumar, and T. H. Lai, “Local barrier coverage in wireless
sensor networks,” IEEE Transactions on Mobile Computing, vol. 9,
no. 4, pp. 491–504, 2010.
A. Saipulla, C. Westphal, B. Liu, and J. Wang, “Barrier coverage with
line-based deployed mobile sensors,” Ad Hoc Networks, vol. 11, no. 4,
pp. 1381–1391, 2013.
B. Bhattacharya, M. Burmester, Y. Hu, E. Kranakis, Q. Shi, and
A. Wiese, “Optimal movement of mobile sensors for barrier coverage
of a planar region,” Theoretical Computer Science, vol. 410, no. 52, pp.
5515–5528, 2009.
A. Saipulla, B. Liu, G. Xing, X. Fu, and J. Wang, “Barrier coverage with
sensors of limited mobility,” in 11th ACM International Symposium on
Mobile Ad Hoc Networking and Computing, 2010, pp. 201–210.
C. Shen, W. Cheng, X. Liao, and S. Peng, “Barrier coverage with
mobile sensors,” in ISPAN 2008, International Symposium on Parallel
Architectures, Algorithms, and Networks, 2008, pp. 99–104.
T. M. Cheng and A. V. Savkin, “A problem of decentralized selfdeployment for mobile sensor networks: Barrier coverage between
landmarks,” in ICCA 2009, IEEE International Conference on Control
and Automation, 2009, 2009, pp. 1438–1442.
G. Yang, W. Zhou, and D. Qiao, “Defending against barrier intrusions
with mobile sensors,” in WASA 2007, International Conference on
Wireless Algorithms, Systems and Applications, 2007, 2007, pp. 113–
120.
L. Kong, X. Liu, Z. Li, and M.-Y. Wu, “Automatic barrier coverage formation with mobile sensor networks,” in ICC 2010, IEEE International
Conference on Communications, 2010, pp. 1–5.
S. Silvestri, “Mobibar: Barrier coverage with mobile sensors,” in
GLOBECOM 2011, Global Telecommunications Conference, 2011, pp.
1–6.
M. Cardei and J. Wu, “Energy-efficient coverage problems in wireless
ad-hoc sensor networks,” Computer Communications, vol. 29, no. 4,
pp. 413–420, 2006.
G. Fan and S. Jin, “Coverage problem in wireless sensor network: A
survey,” Journal of Networks, vol. 5, no. 9, pp. 1033–1040, 2010.
M. Eftekhari, E. Kranakis, D. Krizanc, O. Morales-Ponce,
L. Narayanan, J. Opatrny, and S. Shende, “Distributed algorithms
for barrier coverage using relocatable sensors,” in PODC 2013,
ACM Symposium on Principles of Distributed Computing, 2013, pp.
383–392.
D. Ban, J. Jiang, W. Yang, W. Dou, and H. Yi, “Strong k-barrier
coverage with mobile sensors,” in IWCMC 2010, 6th International
Wireless Communications and Mobile Computing Conference, 2010,
pp. 68–72.

