A Reliability Analysis for Wireless Sensor Networks
in a Wind Farm
Cristian Vasar,
Octavian Prostean,
Ioan Filip,
Raul Robu
Department of Automation and Applied Informatics,
Politehnica University from Timisoara,
Timisoara, Romania
cristian.vasar@aut.upt.ro
Abstract— The paper proposes Markov models for the reliability
analysis of the wireless sensor networks with standby backup
elements. There are presented the theoretical aspects and some of
the variables that are used in the domain of fault tolerant
systems. There has been conducted a study regarding the
reliability of system versus cost price, considering different
number of hot redundant spare parts. Reliability evaluation
techniques are important in the context of design and analysis of
sensitive information gathering sensor networks
Keywords-Reliability, Markov model, fault tolerant sensor
network.
I. INTRODUCTION
A wireless sensor network (WSN) is a set of spatially
distributed autonomous unwired sensors (devices) powered
with battery and equipped with integrated sensors, data
processing capabilities and short-range radio communication
that jointly monitor physical or environmental conditions, such
as: temperature, sound, pressure, motion, etc at different site
locations. WSNs are commonly used for monitoring and
detection of significant events in different environments, on
large areas. Each sensor collects information from the
surrounding environment, performs basic processing and
transmits the data to the user using the network infrastructure.
Wireless sensor networks can be used both for determining
the environmental conditions (especially for a wind farm,
determining the wind speed, essential for maintaining the
turbines in optimal parameters and respective a maximum
efficiency of the energy generation), and for monitoring of a
normal functioning of the wind turbine in order to avoid
possible damages under harsh conditions or their malfunction.
In the respect of this idea, one of the weak points of the
considered system could be sensor malfunction itself that stops
providing information or provide inaccurate information. The
main objective for a wind farm designer is to maximize the
energy harvested within the bounds places on it by constraints,
such as environmental, financial and technical issues. In the
978-1-4244-4221-8/09/$25.00 ©2009 IEEE
Dan Popescu
Department of Mathematics,
Politehnica University from Timisoara,
Timisoara, Romania
frame of the design process of a wind farm, there must be
assess technical issues such as: components reliability, grid
connection, ground conditions etc which may affect the
development and implementation of wind farms. [1]
In the design algorithm of a wind farm, an important stage
is represented by the study of components reliability. The
sensor reliability presents, in this case, a significant
importance, but at the same time the problem can be solved by
using redundancy. The advantages are evident, avoiding a
possible damage of the windmill and optimizing the generation
of renewable energy. The large dimensions of the wind farm
wide impose the usages of a redundant sensor network,
distributed on a wide area, and obviously communication using
radio and not wires.
In industrial process monitoring, it is very important to
distinguish between a sensor failure and a system failure
proactive condition monitoring of a wind farm. The sensor
validation framework is designed for monitoring complex
equipment systems; this is achieved by validating the sensor
data, associating a degree of validity with each measurement,
identifying faulty sensors and detecting incipient sensor
failures. The methodology uses information from a sensor
individually, information from the sensor as part of a group of
sensors, sensor properties and attributes and the immediate
history of the process that is being monitored.
Sensors are susceptible to a wide variety of failures, from
possible hardware or software malfunctions under normal
situations, to those caused by severe weather conditions or
other harsh physical environment in the sensor field. Therefore,
there is associated a non-negligible failure probability to every
type of sensor and it is essential to build a fault tolerant WSN
that is able to continuously provide yielded services regardless
of sensor failures. [2]
WSN failures can be classified in node and network
failures. A sensor node failure can occur due to component
wear-out, power failure or depletion, and natural catastrophes.
The network can fail due to collision, interference and
jamming. [3]
WSN needs to perform, in a timely manner, under
interferences, attacks, accident and failures in hostile
environments while strong resource constraints in the sensor
node make conventional protection mechanisms, which are
applicable to traditional network and information system,
infeasible. [4]
II. RELIABILITY AND MEAN-TIME-TO-FAIL
Different models on achieving fault tolerance are
considered assuming that only one failure occurs at a time and
the failure of the components are independent. This is not a
very restrictive assumption since two failures that occur in the
same moment can be considered to occur consecutively. There
are circumstances that are fault dependent: power fluctuations,
temperature variations, etc, but we assume that any two faults
are independent. Therefore it can be stated that any two events
are disjoint in term of probabilities.
One significant quality issue that should be nowadays taken
into consideration in developing wireless sensor networks
applications is the ‘reliability’ of application services. The
specific characteristics and constraints of WSNs require a
different and adapted interpretation of this factor when
developing applications for such networks. Reliability is
defined as the probability that the system functions properly
and continuously in the interval [0,τ], assuming that it was
operational at time 0. [5]
Taking into consideration that any wireless sensor network
is functional at t=0, and If the system fails at moment t=Tf
then:
⎧1, if 0 ≤ t < T f
R(t) = ⎨ (1)
⎩ 0, if t ≥ T f
WSNs should present reliability differentiation to sustain
different reliability degrees in order to suit the requirements of
different applications regarding throughput, latency and
energy consumption. [6]
The Markov model for reliability of a system is based on
two concepts: the possible states of the system, and the
transitions between the states. The failed state is annotated as
F. The reliability of the system is defined to be as its
probability to be in any other state except F; it is the
probability of being in any state other than F (which is the sum
of the probabilities of each state), or 1 – probability of the
system to be in the F state.
The failure rate is defined as the number of failures per
time unit [7]:
dR(t)
λ = dt (2)
R(t)
Usually, the failure rate for various components is
determined from handbook data, on-site failure-rate data, or
life test data provided by component manufacturers. The WSN
overall reliability is superior since a large part of the
constituent components are microelectronics circuits that have
a very low failure rate.
Thus in most situations the modeling of the lifetime
span of the components is performed by using the monotonous
hazard rate (gamma, Weitbull), generally, in the case of
modeling of the life time cycle of an industrial product, there
can be noticed three distinctive phases, in which the failure
rate presents an different behavior. Therefore, in the first
running phase – in the start-up period, there can be noticed a
higher failure rate, that decreases whilst the product is
operating. This is the case of normal functioning period – the
maturity period, characterized mainly by the low value of the
failure rate function, and finally afterwards the product out
reaches the nominal functioning time period – at the ageing
period, the product presents an increased value of the failure
rate function. [8] In this case, the model has the shape depicted
in Figure 1 and is referred in technical literature as “bath-tube”
type model[9][10]
Failure
rate
Early Constant Failures Wear-out
failures failures
0 Time
Figure 1. Failure rate
Sometimes, the complete information on failure behavior is
not needed and it is more suitable to characterize a failure
model or set of failure data by using only a single parameter.
Thus, the reliability can be represented by the mean time to
failure (MTTF) rather than the more detailed reliability
function. A point estimate (MTTF) is given as a substitute for
the complete time function, R(t). If there is available
information on a population of n items with failure times t1,
t2,... , tn, then the MTTF is defined by the following equation:
1 n
MTTF = ∑ti
n i =1
(3)
Considering hazard models for errors and the fact that the
mean value of a probability function is given by the expected
value (denoted with E(t)) of the random variable, defined over
the range a < t ≤ b with density function f (t), MTTF is given
by the integral of the product of the random variable (time to
failure) and its density function. Considering the time range
from 0 to infinity, performing mathematical manipulation
involving the integration by parts technique leads to a simpler N
expression [11]:
b ∞
Where l = ∑n + k .
i =1
i

MTTF = E (t ) = ∫ t ⋅ f (t ) dt = ∫ R (t ) dt (4) Considering the initial conditions given by:

a 0
P0 (0) = 1, P1 (0) = ... = Pk (0) = Pk +1 (0) = 0 .
The system can be solved using Laplace transform, and
III. MARKOV MODELS FOR NETWORK provide the following solutions:
RELIABILITY 1
P0 ( s ) =
The considered WSNs, consists of N different types of s + lλ
sensors, and k universal standby redundant elements that can
instantly replace any type of elements that are defective. They
are considered to be hot-spares, and they can replace without lλP0 ( s )
P1 ( s) =
delay the failed element. After the spares swap a module, it has s + (l − 1)λ
the same failure rate as the replaced module. In order to
achieve a better reliability of the whole system, one solution is # (6)
to improve the quality of the components or another one is to (l − k + 1)λPk −1 ( s)
increase the number of available spares. Pk ( s) =
s + (l − k )λ
Taking into account the uncertainty that characterize a
system failure, it is convenient to use probabilistic techniques (l − k )λPk ( s)
to model the deterioration, considered as a discrete time Pk +1 ( s ) =
stochastic process. s
In Figure 2 there is depicted the Markov model for a WSN
which leads to the expression:
consisting of ni sensor of type Ti where i=1…N, and k
universal standby redundant elements (denoted with R) that can
instantly replace any type of elements that are defective. l (l − 1)(l − 2).......(l − k + 1)(l − k )λk +1
Pk +1 ( s ) = (7)
H
k
Σniλi+ H
k-1
Σniλi+ Σniλi+ H0 Σniλi F s( s + lλ )( s + (l − 1)λ )............( s + (l − k )λ )
Σni Σni Σni FAIL
kR +kλ R (k-1)R +(k-1)λR +λR
To compute the inverse Laplace transformation of Pk +1 ( s ) it
Figure 2. Markov model for N types of sensors with k spares
is very convenient to use the calculus of residues, which leads
In order to determine the corresponding reliability function, to:
nres
it is considered, for the sake of simplicity, that all components
have the same failure rate λ ( λi = λR = λ , for i =1...N). Pk +1 (t ) = ∑ Res{Pk +1 ( s )e st , ak }
k =1
(8)
Considering the finite set of the (k+2) possible mutually-
exclusive states {Hk , Hk −1,...,H1 , H0 , F} , the probability where ak k = 1, nres are the poles of equation (7). [12]
distribution over these states, for the above Markov model, is For a simple pole ak the corresponding residue is given by
given by the vector
the relation:
P (t ) = [ P0 (t ), P1 (t ), P2 (t ),..., Pk (t ), Pk +1 (t )] .
Res{Pk +1 ( s )e st , ak } = lim ( s − ak ) Pk +1 ( s )e st (9)
s → ak
The differential equations system that describes the model
from Figure 1 is:
using (8) and (9) results:
⎛ P0 ⎞ ⎛−lλ 0 0 # 0 0 0⎞⎛ P0 ⎞
⎜ ⎟⎜ ⎟⎜ ⎟ Pk+1(t) = lim(s − 0)Pk+1 (s)est + ∑lim(s − si )Pk+1 (s)est (10)
⎜ P1 ⎟ ⎜ lλ −(l −1)λ 0 # 0 0 0⎟⎜ P1 ⎟ s→0
i
s→si

d⎜⎜ P2 ⎟⎟ ⎜⎜ 0 (l −1)λ −(l −2)λ # 0 0 0⎟⎜ # ⎟

⎟⎜ ⎟ (5)
= where si = −(l − i )λ , i = 0...k so:
dt⎜ # ⎟ ⎜ # # # # # # #⎟⎜ # ⎟
⎜P ⎟ ⎜ ⎜ ⎟
⎜ k⎟ ⎜0 0 0 # (l −k+1)λ −(l −k)λ 0⎟⎟⎜ Pk ⎟ Pk+1(t) =1+
⎜P ⎟ ⎜ 0 0 0 # 0 (l −k)λ 0⎟⎠⎜⎝Pk+1⎟⎠
⎝ k+1⎠ ⎝ k
l(l −1)(l − 2)...(l − i +1)(l − i −1)...(l − k) −(l−i)λt (11)
+ ∑(−1)i+1 e
i=0 (1⋅ 2⋅ ...⋅ i) ⋅ (1⋅ 2⋅ ...k − i)
and using reliability definition R(t ) = 1 − Pk +1 (t ) results k=8 k=7
k
k=5
k ∏(l − j) k=6

R(t) = ∑(−1)k−i
j=0
e−(l−i)λt (12) k=3
i=0 (l − i) ⋅ (k − i)!⋅ i! k=4

Considering that the Laplace transformation of o function f(t), k=2

defined for any real number t ≥ 0, is the function F(s), defined
by: k=1
∞
F ( s ) = L { f (t )} = ∫ f (t )e −st dt (13)
k=0
0

taking into consideration (4) results that MTTF can be

rewritten as:
Figure 3. Reliability values for k dedicated spares
∞
MTTF = ∫ R (t )dt = R * ( s ) s =0 (14) The same WSN structure was considered to compute the
0
values of MTTF (measured in seconds), but the number of
universal standby spares used was varied from 0 to 100 spares.
where R * ( s ) is the Laplace image of function R (t ) .
The corresponding value of the MTTF is depicted in Figure
As a result, the network mean time to failure is given by: 4. Like in the previous figure, it can be noticed the benefit of
using additional spares over the network overall lifetime.
k
1 1
MTTF = ⋅∑ (15)
λ N
i =0
∑n
j =0
j +i

IV. SIMULATION STUDIES

The simulation study was performed to investigate the
influence of the number of redundant spares on the overall
reliability of the network.
It was considered a wireless sensor network constituted
from 90 sensors of different type. Each considered type
contains 9 sensors. The number of redundant hot spares was
varied from 1 to 8. Also it was considered the case of a
network without redundant spares.
Figure 4. MTTF values for a WSN with different number of spares
All network components, both active and spares, are in the
maturity period, and the failure rate is constant, equal with 5 Considering the fact that all components have the same
failures at 106 seconds. This is a not restrictive since in wind unitary cost (u.c.) it can be calculated the cost indicators
farms, due to the large areas covered, is recommended to avoid presented in Table 1: Efficiency ratio and the Relative gain
the usage of components that exceeds their nominal lifetime, or coefficient.
components that did not pass a minimal burn-in process.
Efficiency ratio is computed as the MTTF divided by the
The resulted reliability curves for the considered cases are total cost of the network.
depicted in Figure 3.
Relative gain coefficient of the considered network is
There can be concluded that the higher number of defined as its efficiency ratio divided by the value of the
redundant hot spares are used the overall reliability function is efficiency ratio corresponding to the case of “no redundancy”.
enhanced.
 TABLE I. MTTF AND COST INDICATORS the wind farm overall efficiency and to minimize the losses due
Indicator MTTF Efficiency Relative gain to usage of low reliability components.
Cost
Mode [105 s] ratio coefficient
90
No spares 0.222
u.c. 0.002466667 1
91
1 spare 0.4420
u.c. 0.004857143 1.969111969
92 REFERENCES
2 spares 0.6594
u.c. 0.007167391 2.905699177
94 [1] Szeidert I., Prostean O., Robu A., Jurca L. (2008). Windmill’s Design
4 spares 1.0872
u.c. 0.011565957 4.688901668 and Implementation Aspects, The 19 th International DAAAM
100 Symposium, “ Intelligent Manufacturing and Automation, 22-25
10 spares 2.3184 October 2008, Trnava, Slovakia. ISI Proceedings, ISSN 1726-9679
u.c. 0.023184 9.398918919
[2] Zhijun Y.; Jie W. (2007). Fault-Tolerant Sensor Coverage for Achieving
It can be seen that using universal redundant hot spares, Wanted Coverage Lifetime with Minimum Cost, International
Conference on Wireless Algorithms, Systems and Applications, WASA
the reliability and the overall lifetime of the network can be 2007, Aug. 2007, Pp:95-102
highly increased, with a small number of spares that adds only [3] Cinque M.; Cotroneo D.; Di Martino C.; Russo S. (2007). Modeling and
small additional costs to the whole system. For example, Assessing the Dependability of Wireless Sensor Networks, The 26th
increasing the total cost of the network with 11%, the overall IEEE Intern. Symp. on Reliable Distributed Systems, Beijing, China,
Oct. 2007, pp 33-42.
lifetime is increased with 944 %.
[4] Dong S. K., Shazzad KM, Jong S. P. (2006). A framework of
survivability model for wireless sensor network, The First International
Conference on Availability, Reliability and Security, 2006. ARES 2006,
20-22 April 2006 Page(s): 8.
V. CONCLUSION [5] Taherkordi A.; Taleghan M.A.; Sharifi M. (2006) Achieving availability
The Markov models proved to be suitable for reliability and reliability in wireless sensor networks applications, The First
International Conf. on Availability, Reliability and Security, 20-22 April
modeling due to the stochastic character of the system failures. 2006 Page(s): 7.
In order to achieve a better reliability of the entire system, [6] Paulo Rogério Pereira, António Grilo, Francisco Rocha, Mário Serafim
one solution is to improve the quality of the components or Nunes, Augusto Casaca, Claude Chaudet, Peter Almström, Mikael
Johansson, End-To-End Reliability In Wireless Sensor Networks:
another one is to increase the number of available spares. Survey And Research Challenges, EuroFGI Workshop on IP QoS and
Traffic Control, P. Pereira (Ed.), Lisbon, Portugal, December 6-7, 2007
Other scalar criteria such as MTTF could be considered in
order to evaluate the choosing of the structure with the highest [7] Bein D.; Jolly V.; Kumar B.; Latifi S. (2002). Reliability Modeling in
Wireless Sensor Networks, International Journal of Information
reliability. It can be concluded that the analysis of the network Technology, Vol. 11 No. 2, 2002
reliability as well as the MTTF and cost indicators confirms [8] Gaver D. P. and Acar M. (1979), “Analytical hazard representations for
that the optimal choice is to use a high number of universal use in reliability, mortality and simulation studies,” Communications in
spares. The simulation proved that the reliability of the entire Statistics— Simulation and Computation, vol. 8, pp. 91–111, 1979.
system is lower if the number of active components is [9] Rajarshi S. and Rajarshi M. B. (1988), “Bathtub distributions: A
increased. review,” Communications în Statistics—Theory and Methods, vol. 17,
pp. 2597–2621, 1988.
Reliability analysis can be performed distributed on various [10] Lai C. D., Xie M., and Murthy D. N. P. (2001), “Bathtub shaped failure
WSN areas, and helps the network designers to a better rate distributions,” în Handbook of Statistics [on Reliability], N.
rearrangement of additional sensor nodes in the exposed Balakrishnan and C. R. Rao, Eds. Amsterdam: North Holland, 2001, pp.
regions. 69–106.
[11] Shooman M.L. (2002). Reliability of Computer Systems and Networks:
The proposed algorithm used for modeling and analysis of Fault Tolerance, Analysis and Design; John Wiley and Sons Inc, New
the sensor network reliability can be applied also for the study York, 2002, pp.528, ISBN 0-471-29342-3
of other wind farms components reliability. [12] Graf, Urs, Applied Laplace Transforms and z-Transforms for Scientists
and Engineers - A Computational Approach Using a Mathematica
The analysis of the components reliability is also very Package, 2004, X, 500 p. With CD-ROM., Hardcover, ISBN: 978-3-
important from the financial point of view, in order to optimize 7643-2427-8, A Birkhäuser book