Sensors 2011, 11, 4358-4371; doi:10.

3390/s110404358
OPEN ACCESS

sensors
ISSN 1424-8220
www.mdpi.com/journal/sensors

Article

Estimation of Distributed Fermat-Point Location for Wireless

Sensor Networking
Po-Hsian Huang 1,*, Jiann-Liang Chen 2, Yanuarius Teofilus Larosa 2 and Tsui-Lien Chiang 3
1
Department of Computer Science and Information Engineering, Yuanpei University, No. 306,
Yuanpei Street, Hsinchu, Taiwan
2
Department of Electrical Engineering, National Taiwan University of Science and Technology,
Taipei, Taiwan; E-Mails: [email protected] (J.-L.C.); [email protected] (Y.T.L.)
3
Department of Computer Science and Information Engineering, National Dong Hwa University,
Hualien, Taiwan

* Author to whom correspondence should be addressed; E-Mail: [email protected];

Tel.: +886-3-610-2355; Fax: +886-3-610-2357.

Received: 28 February 2011; in revised form: 14 March 2011 / Accepted: 11 April 2011 /
Published: 13 April 2011

Abstract: This work presents a localization scheme for use in wireless sensor networks
(WSNs) that is based on a proposed connectivity-based RF localization strategy called the
distributed Fermat-point location estimation algorithm (DFPLE). DFPLE applies triangle
area of location estimation formed by intersections of three neighboring beacon nodes. The
Fermat point is determined as the shortest path from three vertices of the triangle. The area
of estimated location then refined using Fermat point to achieve minimum error in
estimating sensor nodes location. DFPLE solves problems of large errors and poor
performance encountered by localization schemes that are based on a bounding box
algorithm. Performance analysis of a 200-node development environment reveals that,
when the number of sensor nodes is below 150, the mean error decreases rapidly as the
node density increases, and when the number of sensor nodes exceeds 170, the mean error
remains below 1% as the node density increases. Second, when the number of beacon
nodes is less than 60, normal nodes lack sufficient beacon nodes to enable their locations to
be estimated. However, the mean error changes slightly as the number of beacon nodes
increases above 60. Simulation results revealed that the proposed algorithm for estimating
sensor positions is more accurate than existing algorithms, and improves upon
conventional bounding box strategies.
Sensors 2011, 11 4359

Keywords: wireless sensor network; distributed fermat-point location estimation

(DF-PLE); bounding box algorithm

1. Introduction

A wireless sensor network is a large-scale ad hoc wireless network of hundreds or even thousands
of sensor nodes [1,2]. These sensor nodes are subject to power and computation capacity constraints
and have many functions for monitoring various environmental conditions and for collecting
highly-precise data, such as light, humidity, temperature, magnetism, acoustics, pressure and
voice-level information [3,4]. Ongoing challenges in wireless sensor networking include the problem
of obtaining location information by sensor nodes that are not equipped with specialized hardware
(GPS, ultra-sound, acoustic and laser radiation). In fact, applications such as environmental monitoring
and targeting tracking require sensor location information, and several fundamental techniques
developed for wireless sensor networks also require sensor node location information. Therefore,
location awareness is essential in wireless sensor networks.
Numerous sensor network applications require location awareness, whereas in sensor networks,
nodes are deployed into an unplanned infrastructure in which no a priori knowledge of location
exists [5,6]. Thus, a node must know its location in sensor networks. Generally, using a GPS position
is an immediate solution. However, it is typically too expensive to incorporate a GPS receiver into a
sensor node. Hence, localization schemes for sensor networks typically use a small number of seed
nodes (beacons or anchors) that know their location and protocols whereby other nodes estimate their
location based on the messages they receive.
Several localization strategies have been proposed, ranging from solutions dependent on hardware
support by GPS and the presence of an established infrastructure, to range-free solutions that utilize
signal strength, hop count to known landmarks or a priori knowledge about density of nodes in a
net- work. Most of these strategies share a common feature: they use beacon nodes that know their
own locations. Other sensor nodes identify their locations based on information provided by these
beacon nodes. Furthermore, in localization techniques, centralized localization approaches depend on
sensor nodes transmitting data to a central location, where computation is performed to determine the
location of each node. Consequently they generate high communication costs and inherent delay.
However, distributed localization schemes do not require centralized computation and each node
determines its location using limited communication with nearby nodes. For instance, beacon-based
distributed algorithms such as diffusion, bounding box, gradient multi-literation and APIT, typically
start with a group of beacons. Nodes in the network obtain a distance measurement to a few beacons,
and then use these measurements to estimate their locations.
One of the most well-known localization methods for WSNs is Convex Position Estimation (CPE)
proposed by Dohetry et al. [7]. The CPE strategy is a computationally simple approach for localizing
nodes when their ranges to several beacons are known. Notably, each node assumes that it lies at the
intersection of the bounding boxes of its beacons. Further, the center of the bounding box is considered
the approximate initial position of a sensor node. The accuracy of the bounding box approach is best
Sensors 2011, 11 4360

when the actual positions of nodes are closest to the centers of their beacons. The CPE strategy utilizes
a mechanism for bounding the feasible set with a rectangle parallel to the axes, and the algorithm can
be run numerous times. It eventually obtains the smallest rectangle that bounds the feasible set
(Figure 1). Although a feasible set can solve linear programming and semi-definite programming,
unfortunately the solution may not be optimal. Further, the computational price of finding four points
that define the tight rectangular upper bound for a feasible point is high, especially in large wireless
sensor networks. However, its critical weakness is that random guessing causes very large mean errors
in the network.

Figure 1. Bounding Box Algorithm.

To overcome the disadvantages of CPE, in this paper DFPLE is proposed to minimize the mean
error and computational price in estimating WSNs location. Like CPE, DFPLE is based on a bounding
box algorithm to estimate the candidate of location. DFPLE expands the bound for location estimation
using three cases of beacon node positioning. Therefore unlike the CPE has four bound points, DFPLE
has dynamic number of bound points. Then, instead of using linear programming to find smaller area
of estimation, DFPLE exploits the capability of Fermat Point calculation to refine the area of feasible
set of solution and finally achieves minimal computational price.
The rest of this paper is organized as follows. Section 2 discusses existing location discovery
algorithms, including range-based and range-free schemes. Section 3 then describes the proposed
DFPLE algorithm. Next, Section 4 summarizes the performance analysis and simulation. Conclusions
are finally drawn in Section 5, along with recommendations for future research.

2. Related Works

Several effective location discovery protocols for wireless sensor networks have been proposed in
recent years [8-14]. Most solutions for location discovery in sensor networks require some nodes, or
―beacons‖ (also called anchors or reference points), that use GPS or a manual configuration to obtain
location awareness. Based on the technology used for location discovery, localization schemes can be
classified as range-based and range-free. The former depends on the range information (e.g., absolute
point-to-point distance information or directional information) needed to obtain nodes locations
whereas the latter does not require range information.
Sensors 2011, 11 4361

2.1. Range-Based Schemes

Range-based schemes use absolute point-to-point distance or angle information to calculate

locations between neighboring sensors. Such schemes estimate the absolute distance between a sender
and receiver according to received signal strength or by time-of-flight of a communication signal.
Common approaches for distance/angle estimation include Time of Arrival (ToA), Time Difference of
Arrival (TDoA), Angle of Arrival (AoA) and Received Signal Strength (RSS). The accuracy of such
estimation methods, however, depends on the transmission medium and surrounding environment, and
they usually require complex hardware.
The Receiver Signal Strength Indicator (RSSI), initially used for power control in wireless
networks, can also serve as a tool for distance estimation. The idea is that given a predefined
transmission power, a signal propagation model that maps transmission power and a distance to a
received power, one can estimate the distance from a receiver to a sender by identifying the strength of
received power. The benefit of using RSSI for localization in sensor networks is obvious: trilateration
can be achieved for all nodes using only three beacons, and nodes only perform passive listening.
Unfortunately, existing signal propagation models are lacking, thereby significantly limiting
localization accuracy; a receiver usually needs to perform sophisticated algorithms to synthesize the
RSSI values from multiple senders to achieve adequate accuracy.
Time of Arrival (ToA) and Time Difference of Arrival (TDoA) measure signal arrival time or the
difference in arrival times to calculate distance based on transmission time and speed. They can be
applied to many different kinds of signals such as RF, acoustic and ultrasound signals. The ToA is less
accurate than TDoA as processing delays and non-LOS (Line-of-Sight) propagation can generate
errors. The ToA also requires synchronization to accurately measure time-of-flight.
The TDoA utilizes signal propagation speed, which is more robust than the signal attenuation
characteristic used by RSSI. Ideally, when a sender and receiver are synchronized, the Time-of-Flight
(ToF) measurement is already sufficient to identify the distance between the receiver and sender.
However, synchronization, whose precision can match the radio signal speed, is hard to achieve. The
TDoA mechanism is frequently utilized in cellular networks for localizing a handset. Since it only
requires that the difference between arrival times is observed at several receivers, TDoA eliminates the
need for synchronization between a handset and receivers. However, the receivers must be
synchronized. Recent literature has defined TDoA as the difference between arrival times of two
signals. This definition for TDoA actually applies to ToF, as the propagation time of one signal is
measured and another signal is utilized for time synchronization. Employing different signal types for
ranging has the limitation that one of them may not work properly in an environment that favors
another. Therefore, ranging mechanisms relying on only one signal could be desirable for sensor
location surveys.
The Angle of Arrival (AoA) scheme requires measurement of the angle at which a signal arrives at
a base station or a sensor. It is used initially in cellular networks that require each receiver is equipped
with additional gear (e.g., an antenna array) to detect the bearing of a sender’s signal. Figure 2 shows
two position aware nodes, say B1 and B2 that are required to determine the position of a node A. Nodes
B1 and B2 must be able to determine the direction from which a signal is coming. This can be achieved
with an array antenna. An imaginary line is drawn from B1 to A and another imaginary line is drawn
Sensors 2011, 11 4362

from B2 to A. The angle of arrival is defined as the angle that each of these lines makes with a line
directed towards a common reference. The point at which these lines intersect determines the position
of A. However, when A, B1 and B2 are all on the same straight line, another independent measurement
is required to resolve the ambiguity. Accuracy of the AoA scheme is largely dependent on beam-width
of antennas. Therefore, sensor nodes that must be localized are generally very small, and applying this
mechanism is unrealistic due to the limitation on size and power consumption of a node.

Figure 2. AoA Measurement.

2.2. Range-Free Schemes

In range-free localization schemes, the nodes determine their location without time, angle, or power
measurements. Therefore, hardware design is dramatically simplified; however, such schemes are
there- fore extremely cost effective. In such schemes, errors may be masked by network fault tolerance,
redundancy computation, and aggregation. Bulusu proposed an outdoor localization scheme
―Centroid‖, an outdoor location scheme in which the nodes determine the location as the centroid of its
proximate anchor nodes [15]. Compared to other schemes, the Centroid method is easier to implement
and requires less overhead but is less accuracy. Niculescu and Nath proposed DV-hop, in which each
node uses a distance vector-like approach to determine the number of hops to nodes with known
locations, which are called ‖landmarks‖ [16]. Once the number of hops to at least three landmarks is
known, the nodes determine the distance to landmarks by estimating average hop size and then
determine absolute locations by applying multilateration. The Approximate Point in Triangle (APIT)
mechanism resolves the localization problem by dividing the environment into triangular regions
between anchor nodes [17]. By using a point-in-triangle test to determine its location relative to
triangles formed by anchors, a node can reduce the size of its estimated location. The APIT mechanism
defines the center of gravity of the estimated node location as the intersection of all triangles in which
a node resides.

3. Distributed Fermat Point Location Estimation Algorithm

This section describes how the proposed DFPLE strategy uses the Fermat point of the triangle for
an irregular wireless sensor network [18]. For simplicity, only a 2-D network is discussed. First, some
assumptions are required for wireless sensor networks:
 There are N sensor nodes in the wireless sensor network.
 Every sensor node has a unique ID.
 Sensor nodes are deployed randomly.
Sensors 2011, 11 4363

 There are M beacon nodes in the network, where 0 < M < N.

 Each beacon node is equipped with a GPS and, thus, knows its own location.
 The other (N − M) nodes are normal nodes that are unaware of their positions.
 For sake of effective-performance, the transmission power of a beacon node is modulated by
the variable radius method. That is, the power level of beacon nodes can be modulated to high
power level up to increase the communication range of beacon nodes to 2r, where r is the
transmission radius of normal nodes.
The DFPLE consists of four main phases on its operation: gathering beacon node location phase,
estimating location, refining estimated location and error estimation. Each step of phases described
as follows:

[Phase I] Gathering Beacon Node Location

1. To gather information about other beacon nodes within communication range, beacon nodes
must increase power to extend their communication range to 2r.
2. The beacon nodes gather the ID and location information of neighboring beacon nodes by
exchanging beacon frames.

[Phase II] Location Estimation

1. Beacon nodes reduce power to their original level.

2. Normal nodes record all neighbors (including normal node ID, beacon node ID, and locations)
within communication range.
3. Neighboring beacon nodes provide other beacon node locations, which are collected in Phase I.
When the beacon node is beyond the communication range of normal nodes, the neighboring
beacon node that is farthest from the normal beacon node is considered the beacon node.
4. The location of the normal node must meet one of the following three cases:
a. When the normal node is within communication range of a beacon node, the location of
the beacon node is considered the most likely solution [see Figure 3(a)].
b. When the normal node is within communication range of two beacon nodes, the midpoint
of the intersection of their communication ranges is considered the most likely solution
[see Figure 3(b)].
c. When the normal node is within communication range of three beacon nodes, the Fermat
point of the triangle which is formed by the intersection of the three circles in which the
center of the circles are the beacon node locations is considered the most likely solution
[see Figure 3(c)].
Sensors 2011, 11 4364

Figure 3. DFPLE Operation for Sensor Location Estimation.

Two intersecting circles must have two intersection points. Of course, three circles intersecting
circles must have six intersection points. Therefore, a rule is needed for selecting the correct three
intersection points needed to construct a triangle. The symbols are given by Table 1 for all intersection
points. The rule works in three steps (see Figure 4):
Step 1: If P1 Q1 + P1 Q2 > P2 Q1 + P2 Q2 , then P = P2 otherwise P = P1
Step 2: If P Q1 > P Q2 , then Q = Q2 otherwise Q = Q1
Step 3: If P R1 > P R2 , then R = R2 otherwise R = R1

Table 1. Symbols for intersection points.

Symbols Intersection Points
B1 , B2 , B3 three circles
P1 , P2 two intersection points of B1 and B2
Q1 , Q2 two intersection points of B2 and B3
R1 , R2 two intersection points of B1 and B3
P , Q, R three vertices of the triangle

Figure 4. Calculate the Vertices in a Triangle.

The calculations of vertices P, Q, and R coordinates are performed by simple geometric

computation. Figure 5 depicts three neighboring beacon nodes (Bn) circles with radius rn form three
intersections. The distances from one beacon to the others are assumed differ (dB12 ≠ dB13 ≠ dB23). For
two circles of B1 and B2 intersect at P, the x and y coordinates P are approximately given by:
Sensors 2011, 11 4365

(1)

Figure 5. Estimation Locations of Three Beacons.

rB1
rB2

dB12
B2 B1
R(xR,yR) Q(xQ,yQ)

dB13
dB23
P(xP,yP)

B3
rB3

From step 1 of Phase I, rB1 = rB2 = rB3 = r. Hence, the coordinates of vertices P, Q, R can be
obtained using:

(2)

[Phase III] Determine FERMAT Point

The FERMAT point is point in PQR that minimizes |FP| + |FQ| + |FR| (Figure 6). When all angles
of △PQR are less than 120°, a unique Fermat point F lies inside the triangle such that , and
meet each other at mutual angles of 120°. The Fermat point is found as follows.
1. Construct a virtual equilateral triangle associated with each PR, RQ, and QP, designated
PQ`R, RP`Q, and QR`P respectively.
2. Construct lines PP`, QQ` and RR`. These are straight lines that connect the vertices of the
triangle with the opposite vertices of the drawn virtual triangles.
3. Finally, PP`, QQ` and RR` intersect at the Fermat point, for which the sum of the distances
from the point to the vertices of PQR is minimal.
Sensors 2011, 11 4366

Figure 6. Formation of Three Virtual Triangles associated with Fermat Point.

B1

Q` P`

B1 B2
P Q

R`

[Phase IV] Refining Estimated Location

PQR needs to be shrunk to reduce the error in the estimated location. When PQR is constructed
from three neighboring beacon nodes, two vertices may have the same x or y coordinate. Figure 7
presents three constructions of PQR—cases A, B, and C. Each case is treated with respect to
refinement of the estimated location.

Figure 7. Cases of PQR vertices position.

B2
B2
B2 B1 R
R Q
R
B1
B1
Q Q

P
P P

B3 B3
B3

(a). CASE A: Two vertices have the (b). CASE B:Two vertices have the (c). CASE C: all vertices have
same y coordinate. same x coordinate. different coordinates.

The centroid of the triangle (C) can be considered to be a reference point to shrink the PQR.
However when centroid is used as refinement point, the area of PCQ, PCR, and PCQ are always
equal. Therefore using Fermat point provides advantages over centroid in providing a dynamic space
to estimate the location of normal node. Since Fermat point yields different size of PFQ, PFR, and
Sensors 2011, 11 4367

PFQ the refinement of PQR will accurately estimating the location of sensor nodes. In cases A and
B, PQR is an equilateral triangle, so the Fermat point is located at its center. The areas PFR =
PFQ = QFR, therefore PQR need not be refined. In case C, PQR is a scalene triangle so the
areas PFR ≠ PFQ ≠ QFR. PQR area needs to be refined. Hence, the refinement of estimated
location is performed by choosing the largest area of the triangles. Figure 8(b) shows the example
where the largest triangle is QFR. Therefore the estimated location is reduced to the
QFR area.

Figure 8. Types of PQR Refinement.

R
R

F
F

P Q P
Q
(a.) △PQR is Equilateral (b.) △PQR is Scalene

[Phase V] Error Estimation

Localization accuracy is determined based on the closeness of a best estimate for the actual position
of an unknown node. The closeness of a position estimate to the actual estimate is positively correlated
with the accuracy of the algorithm. In this study, performance of the DFPLE algorithm is defined as
the mean error (µ) from the computed to the actual unknown positions. µ given by Equation 3,
provides a measure of the size of the feasible set:

(3)

n is the number of sensor nodes and m is the number of beacon nodes. and are the actual
coordinates of the normal node with sensor ID k, while and are estimated coordinates of the
normal node with sensor ID k. This phase utilized the characteristic of the Fermat point inside the
triangle; namely, the Fermat point is the point at which the sum of its distances from vertices in a
triangle is a minimum, to elevate the location estimation accuracy for the randomly chosen case in
terms of mean error. Furthermore, the normal nodes estimate locations using simply arithmetical
computation.

4. Performance Analysis

The proposed DFPLE strategy was simulated using MATLAB in a static wireless sensor network.
This simulation was conducted in a 2-D square area (5r5r and 10r10r) in which sensor nodes were
randomly deployed. The DFPLE strategy was compared with the Convex Position Estimation (CPE)
strategy to investigate whether the DFPLE algorithm achieves better accuracy and stability. Figure 10
shows a simulation environment in which 200 nodes were randomly distributed in a 10r10r square
Sensors 2011, 11 4368

using a radio range of 1.5r. Compared to the CPE algorithm, the DFPLE algorithm achieves more
accurate location estimation (Figure 9).

Figure 9. Location Estimation of DFPLE and CPE.

B1
Estimated location by CPE
Estimated location by DFPLE
A
R B
F

P Normal node
Q

C D

B2

B3

Figure 10. Simulation Environment.

Most proposed location estimation algorithms generate position estimate errors. Even in idealized
setups with no obstacles or external factors, relatively small errors from noisy sensor measurements
can induce considerably larger errors in node position estimates. Such errors are related to a set of
attributes that in this study are network setup attributes. Network setup attributes include the
measurement technology used, accuracy of measurement technology used, network density,
Sensors 2011, 11 4369

uncertainties in beacon node locations and beacon node densities. The simulations focus on the impact
of three factors: density of sensor nodes, ratio of beacon nodes and response rate.

4.1. Sensor Node Density

The impact on sensor node density is evaluated by increasing the number of sensor nodes from 50
to 200 in a fixed square area (10r10r). This experiment is conducted with 30% beacon nodes and 40%
beacon nodes. Figure 11 shows the impact of node density on mean error. When the number of total
nodes is below 150, the mean error decreases rapidly as node density increases. When the number of
total nodes exceeds 170, mean error remains below 1%, and the impact of node density on mean error
is minimal.

Figure 11. Node Density vs. Mean Error.

4.2. Sensor Node Density

The impact on the ratio of beacon nodes is evaluated by increasing the number of beacon nodes
from 10 to 95 in a 10r10r square random deployment of 200 sensor nodes. Figure 12 shows the impact
of the ratio of beacon nodes on mean error for the two algorithms.

Figure 12. Number of Beacon Nodes vs. Mean Error.

4.3. Response Rate

In wireless sensor networks, response rate is also a metric for network performance. When a
beacon node sends a query packet to its neighbors inside its communication range, if its neighbor’s
location estimation is accurate, this neighbor must respond with a message sent back to the beacon
Sensors 2011, 11 4370

node as soon as it receives the query package. Finally the response rate is calculated. The DFPLE
algorithm has an acceptable performance when the number of beacon nodes exceeds 55 (Figure 13).
As mentioned in simulation results, the proposed DFPLE algorithm improves mean error for the
randomly selected case of the existing bounding box algorithm (CPE strategy). Specifically, the
proposed DFPLE algorithm has better performance than CPE algorithm in terms of location
estimation.

Figure 13. Number of Beacon Nodes vs. Mean Error.

5. Conclusions

This paper has presented DFPLE (Distributed Fermat-point Location Estimation) for WSNs. The
proposed method of estimating sensor positions applies a Fermat point algorithm to estimate sensor
node positions. Unlike the traditional bounding box algorithm, DFPLE is based on the shortest path
from intersection between beacon nodes coverage area. The intersection vertices form a triangle which
Fermat point is located to refine the estimated location of sensor nodes. The simulation, comparing
DFPLE and CPE, revealed the effects of varying the number of sensor nodes and the proportions of
beacon nodes. Simulation results demonstrate that the DFPLE algorithm for estimating sensor
positions is more accurate than existing algorithms and improves upon conventional bounding
box strategies.

References

1. Yuxin, M.; Guiyi, W. A Feedback-Based Secure Path Approach for Wireless Sensor Network
Data Collection. Sensors 2010, 10, 9529-9540.
2. Jaime, L.; Miguel, G.; Diana, B.; Sandra, S. A Wireless Sensor Network Deployment for Rural
and Forest Fire Detection and Verification. Sensors 2009, 9, 8722-8747.
3. Hill, J.; Szewczyk, R.; Woo, A.; Hollar, S.; Culler, D.; Pister, K. System Architecture Directions
for Networked Sensors. In Proceedings of the Ninth International Conference on Architectural
Support for Programming Languages and Operating Systems, Cambridge, MA, USA, 13–15
November 2000; pp. 93-104.
4. Pottie, G.; Kaiser, W. Wireless Integrated Network Sensors. Commun. ACM 2002, 43, 43-51.
5. Philip, L.; Matt Welsh, N.L.; Culler, D. TOSSIM: Accurate and Scalable Simulation of Entire
Tiny OS Applications. In Proceedings of the First ACM Conference on Embedded Networked
Sensor Systems, Los Angeles, CA, USA, 5–7 November 2003; pp. 126-137.
Sensors 2011, 11 4371

6. Shang, Y.; Ruml, W. Improved MDS-Based Localization. In Proceedings of the IEEE

INFOCOM, Hong Kong, China, 7–11 March 2004; pp. 2640-2651.
7. Doherty, L.; Pister, K.S.J.; Ghaoui, L.E. Convex Position Estimation in Wireless Sensor
Networks. In Proceedings of the 20th IEEE INFOCOM, Anchorage, AK, USA, 22–26 April 2001;
Volume 3, pp. 1655-1663.
8. Albowicz, J.; Chen, A.; Zhang, L. Recursive Position Estimation in Sensor Networks. In
Proceedings of Ninth IEEE International Conference on Network Protocol, Riverside, CA, USA,
11–14 November 2001; pp. 35-41.
9. Hightower, J.; Borriello, G. Location Systems for Ubiquitous Computing. IEEE Comput. 2001,
34, 57-66.
10. Ji, X.; Zha, H. Sensor Positioning in Wireless Ad-hoc Sensor Networks Using Multidimensional
Scaling. In Proceedings of the IEEE INFOCOM, Hong Kong, China, 7–11 March 2004;
pp. 33-34.
11. Galstyan, A.; Krishnamachari, B.; Pattem, S.; Lerman, K. Distributed Online Localization in
Sensor Networks Using a Moving Target. In Proceedings of the 33rd IEEE/ACM International
Symposium on Information Processing in Sensor Networks, Berkeley, CA, USA, 27–28 April
2004; pp. 61-70.
12. Son, J.; Pak, J.; Han, K. Determination of Aggregation Point Using Fermat’s Point in Wireless
Sensor Networks. LNCS 2006, 3842, 257-261.
13. Ermis, E.B.; Saligrama, V. Distributed Detection in Sensor Networks with Limited Range Multi
modal Sensors. IEEE Trans. Signal Process. 2009, 58, 843-858.
14. Xu, L.; Santoro, N.; Stojmenovic, I. Localized Distance-Sensitive Service Discovery in Wireless
Sensor and Actor Networks. IEEE Trans. Comput. 2009, 58, 1275-1288.
15. Bulusu, N.; Heidemann, J.; Estrin, D. GPS-Less Low Cost Outdoor Localization for Very Small
Devices. IEEE Personal Commun. Mag. 2000, 7, 28-34.
16. Niculescu, D.; Nath, B. DV Based Positioning in Ad Hoc Networks. J. Telecommun. Syst. 2003,
22, 267-280.
17. He, T.; Huang, C.; Blum, B.M.; Stankovic, J.A.; Abdelzher, T. Range-Free Localization Schemes
for Large Scale Sensor Networks. In Proceedings of 9th Annual ACM/IEEE International
Conference on Mobile Computing and Networking, San Diego, CA, USA, 14–19 September 2003;
pp. 81-95.
18. Chen, J.-L.; Chen, M.-C.; Chiang, T.-L.; Chang, Y.-C.; Shih, F.Y. Distributed Fermat-Point
Location Estimation for Wireless Sensor Network Applications. In Proceedings of IEEE Sarnoff
Symposium, Princeton, NJ, USA, 30 April–2 May 2007; pp. 1-5.

© 2011 by the authors; licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article
distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution license
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/).