48
Int. J. Operational Research, Vol. 22, No. 1, 2015
Integer linear programming model for gridbased wireless transmitter location problems Md. NoorEAlam Department of Mechanical Engineering, 49 Mechanical Engineering Bldg., University of Alberta, Edmonton, AB, T6G 2G8, Canada Email:
[email protected]
Brody Todd and John Doucette* Department of Mechanical Engineering, 49 Mechanical Engineering Bldg., University of Alberta, Edmonton, AB, T6G 2G8, Canada and TRLabs, Edmonton, AB, Canada Email:
[email protected] Email:
[email protected] *Corresponding author Abstract: At present, wireless communications are an integral part of day to day life. To make this communication effective and efficient, we have to place our transmitters in such a way that we can provide reliable service with a minimum cost. However, properly accomplishing this becomes a very difficult and computationally complex task when realworld considerations such as variation in signal strength due to distance and differences in the propagation environment (i.e., different degrees of obstruction) are taken into account. Therefore, the objective of this research is to develop effective and efficient methodologies to design an optimum wireless transmitter allocation strategy. To achieve this objective, we consider this decision problem as a gridbased location problem (GBLP), and develop an ILP model that is designed to provide the optimal solution for the transmitter location problem. These ILP models are often difficult to solve. As such, we developed a problemspecific decomposition approach to solve largescale GBLP ILP problems, which we demonstrate has significantly reduced solution runtimes while not impacting optimality. Keywords: linear programming; transmitter location analysis; gridbased location problems; GBLPs; integer programming. Reference to this paper should be made as follows: NoorEAlam, Md., Todd, B. and Doucette, J. (2015) ‘Integer linear programming model for gridbased wireless transmitter location problems’, Int. J. Operational Research, Vol. 22, No. 1, pp.48–64.
Copyright © 2015 Inderscience Enterprises Ltd.
Integer linear programming model for gridbased wireless transmitter
49
Biographical notes: Md. NoorEAlam completed his PhD in Engineering Management in 2013 from the University of Alberta, Edmonton, AB. He is the recipient of many prestigious scholarships including Izaak Walton Killam Memorial Scholarship and NSERC Postdoctoral Fellowship in part due to his strong academic and research record. Prior to coming to the UofA, he served as an Assistant Professor in the Department of Industrial and Production Engineering at Bangladesh University of Engineering and Technology (BUET). He also previously received his BSc and MSc in Industrial and Production Engineering from BUET. His research focuses on advanced optimisation techniques for largescale optimisation, with particular emphasis on developing new techniques and/or mathematical models for solving a range of engineering and management problems. Brody Todd completed his BSc in Computer Engineering with Distinction from the University of Alberta in 2006 and MSc in Engineering Management from the University of Alberta in 2009. He is currently working towards his PhD in Engineering Management with a focus on the implications of socioeconomic goals and factors in the technical design and operation of large scale communication networks. He has also developed and taught a course in technology commercialisation for the University of Alberta. He has worked as a Systems Analyst developing intelligent optimisation software, and has worked in the field of network management. He has been a student researcher at TRLabs since 2006. John Doucette has been with the Department of Mechanical Engineering at the University of Alberta, Edmonton, AB since 2005, where he is currently an Associate Professor of Engineering Management. His main research interests are in operations research, primarily survivable telecommunications network design and railway operations. He completed his BSc in Mathematics from Dalhousie University, Halifax, NS, 1992, BEng in Industrial Engineering from Technical University of Nova Scotia, Halifax, NS, 1996, and PhD in Electrical and Computer Engineering from U. Alberta in 2004. He has authored or coauthored over 50 peerreviewed journal and conference publications and approximately 30 technical reports and other presentations.
1
Introduction
The communications industry has experienced a paradigm shift, where an exponential increasing trend in the use of wireless communication has occurred in nearly every aspect of our lives, ranging from entertainment and personal communication to business transactions and ecommerce. Wide area applications of sensor networks such as defence, air traffic control, industrial and manufacturing automation, distributed robotics, etc., are also increasing (Chong and Kumar, 2003). All of these activities assume the underlying wireless network is secure and highly reliable. It is therefore imperative that the system is specially engineered for extremely high performance service with minimum cost. Among all the components involved, transmitters are one of the most expensive and critical components. Optimum location of these transmitters plays a vital role in successful operation of these systems. To make communication effective and efficient, we need to place transmitters in a way that will provide a reliable service level with minimal cost. However, this becomes a very difficult and computationally complex task when realworld considerations such as variation in signal strength due to distance and the
50
Md. NoorEAlam et al.
propagation environment (different degrees of obstruction) are taken into account. Therefore, the objective of this research is to develop methodologies to design an optimum transmitter location strategy for a wireless network. A wide variety of research has been carried out on the wireless sensor network location problem due to the proliferation of wireless sensor network applications (Mao et al., 2007). Cao et al. (2006) studied the location problem with imprecise distance information in sensor networks and introduced a set of equality constraints from the geometric relations among distances between nodes. Weng et al. (2011) developed a total least squares (TLSs) algorithm for location estimation of a stationary source, whereas a distributed algorithm is proposed by Gentile (2007) to determine the locations of sensors in a network. Guney et al. (2010) described mixedinteger linear programming models to determine the optimal sink locations and information flow paths between sensors and sinks. In this research they assumed that the sensor locations are known. Jayabharathy et al. (2012) proposed a hybrid indoor wireless location method with an unconstrained optimisation technique. Determining the optimum location of a transmitter is greatly affected by the path loss incurred due to the propagation environment and environmental fading. Sharma et al. (2010) has carried out a brief survey in different models to calculate path loss in various types of environments. The transmitted signal strength decays exponentially with distance and the degree of the obstacles that surround or interject between the transmitter and the receiver (Rodas and Escudero, 2010). The sensors may not be able to communicate through large distances because the transmission range of sensors is limited as a consequence of their energy and size limitations (Guney et al., 2012). For a summary of outdoor path loss models, readers are referred to Durgin et al. (1998). The location of a transmitter significantly influences operation of a wireless system. An adaptive clustering algorithm was proposed for energy efficiency wireless sensor network by Ci et al. (2007). Ai and Abouzeid (2006) proposed an ILP model for the maximum coverage with minimum sensors (MCMS) problem that maximised the number of targets covered, while minimising the number of sensors required. Despite the amount of work in the literature like those discussed above, we find that little effort has been made to determine the optimum location of transmitters while accounting for the variation of signal strength due to distance, the propagation environment (different degrees of obstructions), and installation costs. As such, this research aims to develop a mathematical model to find the optimum transmitter locations for a wireless communication system. It considers this decision problem as a gridbased location problem (GBLP), where the entire location area is approximated by a gridbased system of smallsized cells (NoorEAlam et al., 2012). Our goal is to develop an ILP model to provide the optimal number of transmitters, location of each transmitter, and their capacities (i.e., signal strength). Moreover, we designed a problemspecific relax and fixbased decomposition (RFBD) approach to solve such instances in a computationally efficient manner. To facilitate the solution process further, we integrated valid inequalities and logical restrictions in the first RFBD subproblem. Finally, the ILP model and the RFBD approach were implemented within a standard modelling language and tested on a number of large testcase grids to compare the performance of the proposed technique with the exact method. The remainder of this paper is organised as follows. Section 2 provides the description of the problem and signal strength variation. In Section 3, we discuss ILP model. In Section 4, preliminary results are described. We propose a problemspecific
Integer linear programming model for gridbased wireless transmitter
51
RFBD technique in Section 5 to solve largescale instances. Section 6 describes the results analysis. Finally, conclusions and future research opportunities are briefly described in Section 7.
2
Problem description
The optimum location of transmitters plays a key role in successful operation of a wireless communication system. In this research, our objective is to develop an approach to determine the optimum location of transmitters while accounting for cost, propagation loss, and other signal fading factors. Suppose we consider a geographical location (that includes different degrees of obstructions, such as trees, building, etc.), described as a twodimensional grid of known dimensions. The transmitters must be installed throughout this location to ensure reliable communication. The total number of transmitters must be determined, along with the location of each transmitter and their capacities to minimise cost. The greater the power of the transmitter, the more expensive it will be. There are many factors affecting this decision such as distance, the propagation environment, different degrees of obstructions, etc. The amount of path loss experienced by the signal depends on the degree of obstruction and the distance the signal travels to reach the receiver. As such, the objective is to locate the transmitter in such a way that reliable communication is ensured with minimum cost. This transmitter location problem can be represented by a gridbased area, where the variation of signal strength can be represented within each cell in the grid using the relationships described in the following subsections.
2.1 Signal strength variation 2.1.1 Logdistance path loss model The logdistance path loss model, where the average received signal power decreases logarithmically with distance, is used extensively throughout the literature (Rappaport, 1996). The average largescale path loss PL(d ) for an arbitrary transmitterreceiver separation distance d can be expressed by equation (1) or equation (2) (Rappaport, 1996), where dO is the closein reference distance (close to the transmitter) and ξ is the attenuation factor that is the rate at which the path loss increases with distance. ⎛ d ⎞ PL(d ) ∝ ⎜ ⎟ ⎝ dO ⎠
ξ
⎛ d ⎞ PL(dB) = PL ( d o ) + 10ξ log ⎜ ⎟ ⎝ do ⎠
(1) (2)
All the path losses in equation (2) are measured in decibels (dB). It is important to note that the value of ξ depends on the specific propagation environment and when there are obstructions, ξ will have a large value. The reference path loss PL(d o ) can be calculated through field measurements or by using equation (3) (Rappaport, 1996), where C is a system loss constant. The reference distance is selected based on the propagation
52
Md. NoorEAlam et al.
environment. For example, for microcellular systems, 1 m to 100 m distances are often used in the literature. PL ( d o ) = 10ξ log ( d o ) + C
(3)
2.1.2 Lognormal shadowing model Equation (2) does not take into account fading due to the environment, which leads to measured signal strengths that are very different from the calculated signal strengths obtained by equation (2). Researchers have shown that the measured path loss at any distance d is random and lognormally distributed about the mean distancedependent value, which gives us equation (4) (Rappaport, 1996): ⎛ d ⎞ PL(d ) [dB] = PL(d ) + N σ = PL ( d o ) + 10ξ log ⎜ ⎟ + N σ ⎝ do ⎠
(4)
In this model, Nσ is a zeromean Gaussian distributed random variable with standard deviation σ, where the random variable and the standard deviation are measured in dB. Finally, the total received power at the distance d between two communication nodes can be expressed as in equation (5) (Zhang et al., 2011), where Po is the received power at the reference distance dO: ⎛ d ⎞ Pr (d ) [dBm] = Po − 10ξ log ⎜ ⎟ − N σ ⎝ do ⎠
d ≥ do
(5)
The total received power at the reference distance dO can be calculated by equation (6), where Pxy is the power of the sensor located at (x, y). Po = Pxy − PL ( d o )
(6)
For a technically sound transmitter, the value of system loss constant would be negligible. Therefore, the system loss constant is assumed to be 0. For a nonzero system loss constant there would an associated path loss at the reference distance. The value of dO is also assumed to be 1 m. Using these assumptions in equation (3), we find that there is no path loss at the reference distance. Therefore equation (5) becomes equation (7). Pr (d ) [dBm] = Pxy − 10 log(d ) − N σ
d ≥ do
(7)
2.2 Attenuation calculation process In calculating the attenuation between the transmitter and receiver with the presence of obstacles in the grid, a free space attenuation factor (ξ) of 2 was used (Rappaport, 1996). (A free space attenuation factor is commonly used when there is no physical obstacle between the transmitter and receiver.) Each cell has an interference factor that ranges between 0 and 10, representing a dimensionless degree of obstacles within that square affecting signal propagation. In order to reduce the computational complexity of the problem, interference between all cells in the grid were calculated assuming negligible multipath effects. To illustrate how attenuations were calculated, a 4 × 4 grid is given in
Integer linear programming model for gridbased wireless transmitter
53
Figure 1 with three served regions (S1–S3), a transmitter (T), and an obstacle (O). The obstacle had an interference rating of 8. Figure 1
A sample 4 × 4 grid highlighting one transmitter (T), an obstacle (O), and three served regions (S1–S3)
To evaluate whether or not an obstacle affects a given path, the perpendicular distance between the centre of the square containing the obstacle and the straight line between the centres of the squares serving as transmission endpoints was evaluated. The grid was assumed to have a unit measurement of one (i.e., the distance from the squares indexed at 1, 1 to 2, 1 is one unit distance). If the perpendicular distance was found to be less than 0.5, then the obstacle was considered to be interfering. In Figure 1, the transmission paths of T to S1 and T to S2 would factor the obstacle into the interference calculations, but the obstacle would not factor into the calculations for the path from T to S3. If the source and destination were in the same square, the interference was assumed to be zero, otherwise it was the greater of 2 and the largest obstacle that was interfering with the path between two points. In the example given, path (T, S3) has an interference rating of 2, while (T, S1) and (T, S2) have an interference rating of 8. These interference ratings were considered as different levels of obstruction and translated into attenuation factors according to the data outlined in Table 1. Table 1
Translation of interference ratings to attenuation factors
Interference range
Level of obstruction
Attenuation factor
(0, 2)
No obstruction
2
[2, 4)
Low obstruction
4
[4, 8)
Medium obstruction
6
[8, 10)
High obstruction
8
3
ILP model
We assume that each cell within the grid is uniform throughout the entire cell. In other words, the amount of signal strength at one point in the cell is the same as in all other points in the cell. In order to formulate our ILP model, we define the notation we will use, as follows:
54
Md. NoorEAlam et al.
Input parameters D
is the demand at each cell
Q
is the set of all xcoordinates in the grid, indexed by i
R
is the set of all ycoordinates in the grid, indexed by j
X
is the set of all xcoordinates of the transmitter, indexed by x
Y
is the set of all ycoordinates of the transmitter, indexed by y
UBxy is the upper bound on decision variable Pxy Cf
is the fixed cost to install a transmitter
ij ξ xy
is the attenuation factor between source (x, y) to destination (i, j)
dc
is the horizontal/vertical distance of the centre of adjacent cells.
Decision variables Sij
is the supply at location (i, j), where Sij ≥ 0
Pxy
is the integer size of the capacity of a sensor at location (x, y), where Pxy ≥ 0
Txy ∈ {0, 1}: Txy
is 1 if Pxy > 0; Txy is 0 if Pxy = 0
ij ij ηxy ∈ {0, 1} : ηxy
is 1 if transmitter at location (x, y) covers cell (i, j), 0 otherwise.
Finally, the fixed cost GBLP ILP model for optimum transmitter location problem can be formulated as follows:
∑∑ P
Minimise ⎧ ⎨ ⎩ x∈X
xy
y∈Y
∑∑ T
+ Cf ⎛ ⎜ x∈X ⎝
xy
y∈Y
⎞⎫ ⎟⎬ ⎠⎭
(8)
Subject to:
{
( (
ij Sij = Max Pxy − 10ξ xy log d c ∀xy
(i − x) 2 + ( j − y ) 2
) ) − 3σ}
∀i ∈ Q, ∀j ∈ R
(9)
Sij ≥ D
∀i ∈ Q, ∀j ∈ R
(10)
Pxy ≤ M 1 × Txy
∀x ∈ X , ∀y ∈ Y
(11)
0 ≤ Pxy ≤ UBxy
∀x ∈ X , ∀y ∈ Y
(12)
Txy ∈ {0, 1}
∀x ∈ X , ∀y ∈ Y
(13)
As this model considers cost criteria, our objective is to minimise the sum of total variable cost and total fixed cost required to fulfil the demands throughout the grid. To fulfil this objective, equation (8) represents the total cost, where we consider per unit variable costs of 1. On the basis of our description of signal strength variation in Section 2, equation (9) is used to calculate the total ‘supply’ available in each cell (i, j). In
Integer linear programming model for gridbased wireless transmitter
55
this model, we minimise the total cost while satisfying the ‘demand’ constraint described in equation (10), which confirms that total supply in each cell should be greater or equal to the demand for each cell. Constraint (11) confirms that if Pxy > 0, then Txy = 1 or 0, otherwise. Note that Txy represents whether or not a transmitter is placed in the cell in question; Txy = 1 if a transmitter is placed in that cell, and Txy = 0 if a transmitter is not placed in that cell. In equation (11), M1 is a sufficiently large number to satisfy this restriction. Equations (12)–(13) are required to put bounds on decision variables. Our objective of this work is to develop an ILP model, but we see that equation (9) is not a linear equation. Therefore we replaced equation (9) with the equivalent linear equations (14)–(17). In equation (15), M2 is a large number, which is defined by equation ij (18). This is to confirm that equation (15) properly chooses where max occurs (i.e., ηxy takes a value of 1).
( (
ij Sij ≥ Pxy − 10ξ xy log d c
(i − x) 2 + ( j − y ) 2
) ) − 3σ
(14)
∀i ∈ Q, ∀j ∈ R, ∀x ∈ X , ∀y ∈ Y
( (
ij Sij ≤ Pxy − 10ξ xy log d c
(i − x) 2 + ( j − y ) 2
) ) − 3σ + M (1 − η ) 2
∀i ∈ Q, ∀j ∈ R, ∀x ∈ X , ∀y ∈ X ij ηxy ∈ {0, 1}
∑∑ η
ij xy
∀i ∈ Q, ∀j ∈ R, ∀x ∈ X , ∀y ∈ Y
ij xy
(15) (16)
= 1 ∀i ∈ Q, ∀j ∈ R
(17)
x∈ X y∈Y
{
( ( (i − x) + ( j − y) )) − 3σ} log ( d ( (i − x) + ( j − y ) ) ) − 3σ}
ij M 2 ≥ max Pxy − 10ξ xy log d c ∀i , j , x , y
{
ij − min Pxy − 10ξ xy ∀i , j , x , y
2
c
2
2
(18)
2
Finally, the objective function (8), along with the constraint equations (10)–(17) constitute our ILP model.
4
Preliminary results
We solve our instances of the above problem on an 8 processor ACPI multiprocessor X64based PC with an Intel Xeon® CPU X5460 running at 3.16 GHz with 32 GB memory. We implemented our model in AMPL (Fourer et al., 2002), and used CPLEX 11.2 solver (ILOG, 2007) to solve them. To obtain preliminary results, we chose eight small to moderate sized testcase grids: 5 × 5, 5 × 5a, 7 × 7, 7 × 7a, 8 × 8, 8 × 8a, 10 × 10 and 10 × 10a as described in Table 2 with a sample graphical representation in Figure 2. In these grids, magnitudes and locations of the obstructions are randomly chosen to create testcase grids. In this solution, other parameters are assumed as follows: dc = 10, UBxy = 200, Cf =10 and D = 20. Note that we have selected some grids with equal dimension, but with different distribution of obstructions to see the effect of this distribution in the decision outcome and solution statistics. We used a CPLEX mipgap
56
Md. NoorEAlam et al.
setting of 0.001, which means all test cases solved to full termination are provably within 0.1% of optimality. Table 2
Location of grid obstructions
Grid name
Low obstruction
Medium obstruction
High obstruction
5×5

(4, 2)
(2, 3)
5 × 5a
(2, 4)
(4, 4)
(4, 2)
7×7
(4, 4)
(7, 5)
(6, 2), (2, 6)
7 × 7a
(5, 1)
(2, 3), (7, 5), (5, 7)
(4, 4)
8×8
(3, 5)
(3, 2), (6, 7)
(7, 3)
8 × 8a
(2, 7)
(3, 2), (6, 7)
(4, 5), (7, 3)
10 × 10
(3, 5), (8, 6)
(4, 9)
(7, 3)
10 × 10a
(8, 6)
(4, 9), (9, 9)
(3, 5), (7, 3)
Figure 2
Sample obstructions’ map for the (a) 5 × 5 grid and (b) 5 × 5a grid
(a)
(b)
Table 3 shows the respective solution data for the above ILP model on these eight testcase grids. Different runtime statistics obtained from the exact method are indicated in this table for the specified testcase grid (described in the first column). The second and third columns show the associated optimal objective function value (OOFV) and optimum number of transmitter(s), respectively. The other columns show the total number of simplex iterations, total number of branchandbound nodes, and CPU time. We see from this table that the developed GBLP model is computationally intractable by the exact method, with solution times reaching several days for the 10 × 10 grid. The smallest grids (5 × 5 and 5 × 5a) could be solved in less than a minute, but solution times increased in an exponential type fashion for the larger grids. It took roughly 30 and 68 minutes, respectively, to solve the 7 × 7 and 7 × 7a grids, reaching 2.87 days and 4.57 days to solve the 10 × 10 and 10 × 10a grids, respectively. For these test cases, the CPLEX solver’s branchandbound procedure makes considerable progress at the early stages, with rapid improvements in the objective function values of the besttodate branchandbound nodes. However, reductions in optimality gap quickly slow down, and
Integer linear programming model for gridbased wireless transmitter
57
require several days of runtime with a huge number of simplex iterations (more than 89 million for 10 × 10 grid and more than 116 million for 10 × 10a grid) and an explosion of branchandbound nodes (more than 104 thousand for the 10 × 10 grid and more than 88 thousand for the 10 × 10a grid). From our preliminary investigation, it is plausible that larger grids with highly heterogeneous obstruction distributions will be very difficult to solve with the exact method. This was the driver behind our efforts to develop the RFBD techniques discussed in the next section. It is also worth mentioning here that the degree of the complexity of the problem not only depends on the size of the grids, but also the variations of obstructions. We see that for the 7 × 7 grid, the solver took 8,077 seconds, whereas solving the 7 × 7a, took 19,709 seconds (more than two times greater). This was due to the variation of obstructions in the map. Some instances of the problem might create much tighter LP relaxations than other instances, and/or algorithms used by CPLEX’s internal branchandbound procedures, might be better suited to some of those specific instances. It is also noted that the OOFV and the total number of optimum transmitters are different for the same size grids. For example for 8 × 8, they were 153 and 1, whereas for 8 × 8a, they were 178 and 1. Similar results were found for the other pairs of grids. Table 3
Runtime statistics for different testcase grids solved by the exact method
Grids
OOFV
Optimum # of transmitter(s)
# of MIP simplex iterations
# of branch and bound nodes
CPU time (in seconds)
5×5
147
2
181,836
3,002
40.53
5 × 5a
150
2
89,717
1,627
19.55
7×7
157
2
2,086,602
8,077
1,805.55
7 × 7a
154
2
4,263,524
19,709
4,063.12
8×8
153
1
6,367,467
14,972
11,124.9
8 × 8a
178
1
6,311,056
11,394
11,282.5
10 × 10
162
2
89,431,171
104,495
247,952
10 × 10a
181
1
116,265,208
88,923
394,598
5
Relax and fixbased decomposition
In many difficult ILP models, computational complexity arises from just a small subset of constraints or integrality requirements. Such ILP instances are often solved by relaxationbased decomposition techniques. In these approaches, we can decompose the original problem into two easy subproblems by relaxing the complicating constraints via Lagrangian relaxation; those subproblems can then be solved iteratively to obtain a nearoptimal solution. Alternatively, we can relax the integrality requirement(s) of selected decision variables to decompose the original problem into subproblems, which, again, will permit us to obtain a nearoptimal solution (Wolsey, 1998). Using this approach, we first solve the (partially) relaxed problem (i.e., some integrality requirements are ignored). The solution to that easy subproblem will provide us with values for the remaining integer decision variables that can be then fixed in the original,
58
Md. NoorEAlam et al.
thereby producing a second subproblem. The second subproblem is then solved to provide a nearoptimal solution to the original. We refer to this technique as RFBD (NoorEAlam and Doucette, 2012). RFBD is a problemspecific technique whose success depends on the careful selection of the set of integer variables to be relaxed in the first subproblem. We see from our preliminary experiments and investigations that the ILP model for this location problem becomes computationally intractable to solve by the exact method. Therefore we design the following problemspecific RFBD technique to solve largescale instances, as RFBD has been found to be successful for solving GBLPs (NoorEAlam and Doucette, 2012). In the exact method, we solved our GBLP ILP models to determine the total number, location(s), and size(s) of the transmitter(s) simultaneously. In the RFBD approach, we make these decisions in the following two steps. Step 1
First, we determine the total number and location(s) of the transmitter(s). By relaxing the integrality requirement of the Pxy variables, we obtain a subproblem that is easier to solve, as there are fewer integer decision variables, but will still permit precise identification of the location of transmitters.
Step 2
In the second step, the precise locations of the transmitter(s) (i.e., Txy decision variable values) found from the first subproblem are fixed in the original problem, which is later solved to determine the size(s).
This approach does not guarantee optimality, however, in prior literature, it has been shown that it is quite successful in providing high quality GBLP solutions in less time (NoorEAlam and Doucette, 2012). Moreover, from our preliminary experiments with the ILP model, we see that even the first relaxed problem was very difficult to solve. Therefore, in the first step, we propose to integrate the valid inequalities and logical restrictions to solve the first subproblem quickly and reduce the overall solution time even further. Suppose for the following 4 × 4 grid problem shown in Figure 3, two transmitters (T22 = 1 and T43 = 1) are able to satisfy the demand for all cells. From this scenario, it is obvious that if there is a transmitter at any location (x, y), then it will at least satisfy one demand cell. This phenomenon can be modelled with equation (19). It has been expected that these inequalities will create tight LP relaxations and the solver will take less time to solve the first subproblem.
∑∑ η
ij xy
≥ Txy
∀x ∈ X , ∀y ∈ Y
(19)
i∈Q j∈R
Furthermore, to reduce the computational burden of solving the first subproblem, we add the following logical restriction (LR) defined by equation (20), where Tmax is the maximum number of allowable transmitter(s) considered in this model. As we see in our ILP model, we minimise the total cost, and by choosing an appropriate value of this maximum threshold, we will help the solver to reduce the search region.
∑∑ T
xy
≤ Tmax
(20)
x∈ X y∈Y
Finally, Figure 4 illustrates the details of this proposed problemspecific RFBD approach.
Integer linear programming model for gridbased wireless transmitter Figure 3
Illustration of valid inequalities
Figure 4
Illustration of the RFBD approach
59
60
6
Md. NoorEAlam et al.
Results and analysis of RFBD
We solve our ILP model here with the same experimental setup outlined in Section 4. In addition to the grids used there, we also add much larger testcase grids: 10 × 15, 10 × 20, 15 × 15, 15 × 20 and 20 × 20, described in Table 4. Again, in these grids, the magnitudes and locations of the obstructions are randomly chosen to create testcase grids. Table 5 shows the comparative solution data for the exact method and the RFBD approach on the 13 testcase grids. The exact method refers to the benchmark solution that was obtained via the ILP in Section 4 with mipgap = 0.001. In addition, the sum of the CPU times required to solve the two subproblems gave us the CPU time for the RFBD approach as a whole. Table 4 Grid name
Location of grid obstructions for large grids Low obstruction
Medium obstruction
High obstruction
10 × 15
(5, 4), (5, 9)
(4, 12), (13, 7)
(12, 3)
10 × 20
(5, 4), (5, 9), (5, 20), (13, 14)
(4, 12), (13, 7), (13, 18)
(12, 3)
15 × 15
(5, 4), (5, 15), (8, 9), (10, 4), (10, 15), (13, 9)
(4, 7), (8, 2), (8, 13), (9, 7), (13, 2), (13, 13)

15 × 20
(5, 4), (5, 15), (8, 9), (8, 19), (10, 4), (10, 15), (13, 9), (13, 19)
(4, 7), (4, 17), (8, 2), (9, 7), (9, 17), (13, 2), (13, 13)

20 × 20
(5, 4), (5, 15), (8, 9), (8, 19), (10, 4), (10, 15), (13, 9), (13, 19), (17, 9), (17, 19), (19, 4), (19, 15)
(4, 7), (4, 17), (8, 2), (8, 13), (9, 7), (9, 17), (13, 2), (13, 13), (17, 2), (17, 13), (18, 7), (18, 17)

While we have already seen that the exact method takes a very long time (nearly five days) to solve a 10 × 10a grid, larger grids become intractable. Therefore, we do not show the solution data for the five new (larger) grids solved by the exact method. We see that the solutions (OOFV and optimum number of transmitters) obtained from the RFBD approach were the same as the exact method for the testcase grids shown in this table. However, with the RFBD approach, significant runtime reduction was observed compared to the exact method. We see that for the testcase grids for which we have exact method solutions, the RFBD approach achieved an average of 93% runtime reduction, without affecting optimality. Furthermore, the RFBD approach took fewer simplex iterations and branchandbound nodes. In the RFBD approach, the total number of simplex iterations and branchandbound nodes were the sum of the total number of simplex iterations and branchandbound nodes required to solve the two subproblems. Each of the subproblems became an easier ILP problem compared to the original problem. Therefore, they required a very small number of simplex iterations and branchandbound nodes to reach optimality.
181





10 × 10a
10 × 15
10 × 20
15 × 15
15 × 20
20 × 20
153
8×8
178
154
7 × 7a
162
157
7×7
10 × 10
150
5 × 5a
8 × 8a
147
5×5
Exact method
OOFV
172
170
163
178
170
181
162
178
153
154
157
150
147
RFBD





1
2
1
1
2
2
2
2
Exact method
1
1
1
1
2
1
2
1
1
2
2
2
2
RFBD
Optimum # of transmitters





116,265,208
89,431,171
6,311,056
6,367,467
4,263,524
2,086,602
89,717
181,836
Exact method
33,226,950
17,491,921
16,650,200
36,646,305
35,730,280
5,148,209
13,858,744
732,548
805,963
348,242
407,825
21,048
42,615
RFBD
# of MIP simplex iterations





88,923
104,495
11,394
14,972
19,709
8,077
1,627
3,002
Exact method
23,500
14,122
24,792
26,985
22,307
6,096
13,285
2,022
1,947
1,184
1,349
618
573
RFBD
# of branchandbound nodes





394,598
247,952
11,283
11,125
4,063.1
1,805.6
19.55
40.531
Exact method
1,165,350
554,048
342,549
550,757
187,318
5,899.3
22,084
598.7
444.9
229.5
258.5
1.77
3.01
RFBD





98.5
91
94.7
96
94.4
85.7
90.95
92.57
% reduction
CPU time (in seconds)
Table 5
Grids
Integer linear programming model for gridbased wireless transmitter Runtime statistics for different testcase grids solved by the exact method
61
62
Md. NoorEAlam et al.
We can now return to our discussion above, regarding the introduction of valid inequalities and logical restriction to reduce the feasible region and the number of branchandbound nodes in our problem solution due to the tight LP relaxation. Table 5 shows the details on the number of simplex iterations and branchandbound nodes for solutions using our RFBD and the exact method. We observed, for instance, that in the 10 × 10a grid, solution of the exact method required nearly 116 million simplex iterations and nearly 89 thousand branchandbound nodes, while use of RFBD approach reduced those numbers to approximately 5 million simplex iterations and 6 thousand branchandbound nodes. Clearly, the introduction of logical restrictions and valid inequalities significantly reduced the complexity of the first subproblem in our RFBD approach, which ultimately facilitated the reduction of CPU time to solve the entire problem. While solutions were generally obtainable for all the testcase grids, even our proposed decomposition technique will be unable to obtain a solution for the most computationally complex instances. The proposed RFBD technique took more than a million seconds (almost two weeks) of CPU time to solve the 20 × 20 testcase grid. It is also clear from the data that the RFBD runtimes appear to increase in an exponential type fashion with the size and variation of obstructions in the testcase grid. In the future, our plan is to develop additional techniques to integrate with the first subproblem (since it is the source of greatest complexity in the RFBD approach) so that we could achieve further reduction of CPU time and solve these largescale instances quickly.
7
Conclusions
This paper proposes an ILP model to optimally place wireless transmitter(s) to design costeffective communication systems. Our ILP model was developed to optimise the number of transmitter(s), their location(s), and their size(s) by considering the variation of signal strengths due to distance, propagation environment, and establishment cost. To solve largescale instances, we have developed a problemspecific RFBD approach that significantly reduces the computational complexity of the problem (measured in CPU time). To further facilitate the reduction of solution runtime, we have proposed valid inequalities and logical restrictions in the first RFBD subproblem. We carried out experiments to test RFBD with a number of large testcase grids and have shown that it is quite effective in reducing problem runtime without loss of optimality (at least in the grids where exact solutions exist). In the most computationally complex testcase solved by the exact method, it reduces runtime by 98.5% without loss of any optimality. In the future, we plan to extend this work to develop more advanced optimisation techniques (perhaps integrating other strong cuts) to solve larger problems more efficiently. While we have tested our ILP model and the RFBD approach on a GBLP that seeks to optimally place transmitter(s) to minimise the total cost, other GBLPs could be solved using this approach. Potential problems include optimal placement of retail outlets and/or warehouses, sensor network placement, resource exploitation, and even delivery of radiation therapy.
Integer linear programming model for gridbased wireless transmitter
63
Acknowledgements The authors are indebted to the Killam Trusts, Profiling Alberta’s Graduate Students Award and NSERC for their financial support in this research. The authors would like thank the anonymous reviewers for their constructive comments to improve the overall quality of this paper.
References Ai, J. and Abouzeid, A.A. (2006) ‘Coverage by directional sensors in randomly deployed wireless sensor networks’, Journal of Combinatorial Optimization, Vol. 11, No. 1, pp.21–41. Cao, M., Anderson, B.D.O. and Morse, A.S. (2006) ‘Sensor network localization with imprecise distances’, Systems & Control Letters, Vol. 55, No. 11, pp.887–893. Chong, CY. and Kumar, S.P. (2003) ‘Sensor networks: evolution, opportunities, and challenges’, Proceedings of the IEEE, Vol. 91, No. 8, pp.1247–1256. Ci, S., Guizani, M. and Sharif, H. (2007) ‘Adaptive clustering in wireless sensor networks by mining sensor energy data’, Computer Communications, Vol. 30, Nos. 14–15, pp.2968–2975. Durgin, G., Rappaport, T.S. and Xu, H. (1998) ‘Measurements and models for radio path loss and penetration loss in and around homes and trees at 5.85 GHz’, IEEE Transactions on Communications, Vol. 46, No. 11, pp.1484–1496. Fourer, R., Gay, D.M. and Kernighan, B.W. (2002) AMPL: A Modeling Language for Mathematical Programming, Duxbury Press, Cole Publishing Co., USA. Gentile, C. (2007) ‘Distributed sensor location through linear programming with triangle inequality constraints’, IEEE Transactions on Wireless Communications, Vol. 6, No. 7, pp.2572–2581. Guney, E., Aras, N., Altnel, I.K. and Ersoy, C. (2010) ‘Efficient integer programming formulations for optimum sink location and routing in heterogeneous wireless sensor networks’, Computer Networks, Vol. 54, No. 11, pp.1805–1822. Guney, E., Aras, N., Altnel, I.K. and Ersoy, C. (2012) ‘Efficient solution techniques for the integrated coverage, sink location and routing problem in wireless sensor networks’, Computers & Operations Research, Vol. 39, No. 7, pp.1530–1539. ILOG (2007) ILOG CPLEX 11.0 User’s Manual, ILOG, Inc., USA. Jayabharathy, R., Prithiviraj, V. and Varadharajan, R. (2012) ‘Hybrid range based indoor wireless localization using unconstrained nonlinear optimization for UWB applications’, Procedia Engineering, Vol. 30, pp.562–568. Mao, G., Fidan, B. and Anderson, B.D.O. (2007) ‘Wireless sensor network localization techniques’, Computer Networks, Vol. 51, No. 10, pp.2529–2553. NoorEAlam, M. and Doucette, J. (2012) ‘Relaxandfixbased decomposition technique for solving large scale GBLPs’, Computers and Industrial Engineering, Vol. 63, No. 4, pp.1062–1073. NoorEAlam, M., Ma, A. and Doucette, J. (2012) ‘Integer linear programming models for gridbased light post location problem’, European Journal of Operational Research, Vol. 222, No. 1, pp.17–30. Rappaport, T.S. (1996) Wireless Communications: Principles and Practice, PrenticeHall Inc., New Jersey. Rodas, J. and Escudero, C.J. (2010) ‘Dynamic pathloss estimation using a particle filter’, International Journal of Computer Science Issues, Vol. 7, No. 4, pp.1–5. Sharma, D., Sharma, P.K., Gupta, V. and Singh, R.K. (2010) ‘A survey on path loss models used in wireless communication system design’, International J. of Recent Trends in Engineering and Technology, Vol. 3, No. 2, pp.115–118.
64
Md. NoorEAlam et al.
Weng, Y., Xiao, W. and Xie, L. (2011) ‘Total least squares method for robust source localization in sensor networks using TDOA measurements’, International Journal of Distributed Sensor Networks, Article ID 172902, 8p, doi:10.1155/2011/172902. Wolsey, L.A. (1998) Integer Programming, Chapter 1, WileyInterscience, Series in Discrete Mathematics and Optimization, Toronto. Zhang, RB., Guo, JG., Chu, FH. and Zhang, YC. (2011) ‘Environmentaladaptive indoor radio path loss model for wireless sensor networks localization’, Int. J. Electron. Commun. (AEÜ), Vol. 65, No. 12, pp.1023–1031.