Affiliations 

  • 1 Institute of Information Technology, Kohat University of Science Technology, Kohat KP 26000, Pakistan. dramjad.mehmood@ieee.org
  • 2 Urban Planning Department, College of Architecture and Planning, King Saud University, Riyadh 14511, Saudi Arabia. nabil@ksu.edu.sa
  • 3 Guangdong Provincial Key Lab of Petrochemical Equipment Fault Diagnosis, Guangdong University of Petrochemical Technology, Maoming 525000, China. m.mukherjee@ieee.org
  • 4 Faculty of Information Science and Technology (Bangi Campus), Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia, Bangi Selangor 43600, Malaysia. salwani@ukm.edu.my
  • 5 Department of Electrical, Computer, Software, and Systems Engineering, Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University, Daytona Beach, FL 32114, USA. h.song@ieee.org
Sensors (Basel), 2018 Jun 01;18(6).
PMID: 29865210 DOI: 10.3390/s18061787

Abstract

Although wireless sensor networks (WSNs) have been the object of research focus for the past two decades, fault diagnosis in these networks has received little attention. This is an essential requirement for wireless networks, especially in WSNs, because of their ad-hoc nature, deployment requirements and resource limitations. Therefore, in this paper we survey fault diagnosis from the perspective of network operations. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first survey from such a perspective. We survey the proactive, active and passive fault diagnosis schemes that have appeared in the literature to date, accenting their advantages and limitations of each scheme. In addition to illuminating the details of past efforts, this survey also reveals new research challenges and strengthens our understanding of the field of fault diagnosis.

* Title and MeSH Headings from MEDLINE®/PubMed®, a database of the U.S. National Library of Medicine.