A Comparative Study of In-sensor Processing vs.

Raw Data Transmission using ZigBee, BLE and WiFi for Data Intensive Monitoring Applications
Khurram Shahzad, Bengt Oelmann
Department of Electronics Design
Mid Sweden University
Sundsvall, Sweden
{khurram.shahzad, bengt.oelmann}@miun.se
AbstractWireless sensor nodes, as typically realized using
IEEE 802.15.4 compatible low-power radio transceivers
that offer limited throughput, are generally applicable to
low-data rate intermittent monitoring applications. In
order to realize high sample rate monitoring applications,
it requires either transmitting raw data using a highthroughput radio transceiver or performing computation
within the sensor node and then transmitting a small
amount of information. In relation to a energy constrained
wireless sensing node, a quantitative evaluation of raw
data transmission using different short range wireless
technologies and in-sensor processing is conducted in this
paper. The results, associated with the energy consumption
of two data intensive monitoring applications, suggest that
in-sensor processing resulting in a small amount of data to
be transmitted consumes less energy as compared to that
of raw data transmission, even under ideal channel
conditions.

Wireless
technologies
Optical

Infrared

Wireless
broadband

LAN

WiMax

WiFi

Mobile
broadband

Bluetooth

PAN

Zigbee

Figure 1. Standard based wireless communication technologies

while consuming the minimum energy, is a motivating factor

with regards to evaluating different standard-based wireless
communication technologies such as those depicted in Fig. 1.
In relation to a low-power, low-cost and compact size wireless
sensor node, an analytical evaluation of these technologies
enables a choice to be made regarding most feasible
alternatives for quantitative comparison.

Keywords- ZigBee; Bluetooth low energy; BLE; IEEE

802.15.4; Wi-Fi; in-sensor processing; wireless sensor;
I.

Radio

INTRODUCTION

The practical infrared transceivers can be used to achieve

data rates of up to several Mbps. These transceivers are cheap
and easy to integrate in a sensor node. However, their
communication range is limited. In addition, both the sender
and the receiver are required to be in the line-of-sight in order
to achieve the desired communication. Therefore, infrared
communication can be better suited to specific operating
conditions, such as underwater communication etc. [6].

During the past decade, wireless sensor networks (WSNs)

have emerged as a cost-effective, dynamically scalable, easy to
deploy and maintainable alternative to conventional wire-based
monitoring solutions in many fields [1]-[3]. In a WSN,
spatially distributed sensor nodes monitor different parameters
in the environment and form a network by means of wireless
communication so as to relay the data to a central destination.
In order to cope with the limited energy budget in such nodes,
the wireless communication is typically realized with lowpower radio transceivers (i.e. 802.15.4 compatible). With this
low-energy consumption and the resulting limited
communication throughput, such nodes have traditionally been
better suited to low-sample rate intermittent monitoring
applications. Realizing high-sample rate applications such as
image and vibration based industrial monitoring, both the
communication throughput of the low-power radio transceivers
that are typically used in such nodes and their associated
energy consumption [4]-[5] pose a challenge in attaining a
practically feasible solution.

In relation to radio communication, there are several

standards that can be considered for data intensive wireless
communication in a sensor node. The mobile broadband,
depending upon the generation and the underlying radio
technology, offers data rates of up to ten of Mbps for uplink.
However, the throughput, i.e. the actual transmission data is
dependent upon the coverage. In relation to low-cost and lowpower wireless sensor nodes, not only the integration cost and
the power-consumption of these transceivers are undesirable,
but the costs associated in obtaining broadband services is least
desirable. Therefore, the integration of mobile broadband in a
wireless sensor node may only be best suited to certain
scenarios. For example, one node in a cluster of sensor nodes

Finding an appropriate radio transceiver, which can fulfill

the throughput requirements of high-data rate applications

978-1-4799-5863-4/14/$31.00 2014 IEEE

519

can be enabled to communicate with a remote destination using

mobile broadband [7].

image based monitoring application. The analyses for the raw

data transmission in this study are also limited to the ZigBee
based wireless communication.

WiMax, which is intended to provide high-speed internet

connectivity to both fixed and mobile users, offers data rates of
tens of Mbps to hundred of Mbps. In similar manner to mobile
broadband, currently, both the cost and the power consumption
associated with integrating WiMax into each node of a sensor
network pose a challenge in realizing a cost effective sensor
network that can achieve a long operational lifetime. Therefore,
this communication technology can be better suited to
interconnecting physically dispersed wireless networks [8].

III.

A. ZigBee
The ZigBee protocol, that is maintained and published by a
group of companies known as the ZigBee Alliance, is intended
to provide reliable, low-cost, low-power, and easy-to-install
and maintain wireless connectivity, in order to create Personal
Area Network (PAN) for low-data rate monitoring
applications. The ZigBee protocol uses IEEE 802.15.4
specifications for the PHY and MAC layers, whereas the
Alliance provides the specifications for the upper layers, which
mainly deal with aspects such as network configuration,
security, messaging and application profile.

On the other hand, the typical data rates, cost, power

consumption, and coverage of both the Wi-Fi and Bluetooth,
and, in particular, Bluetooth Low Energy (BLE) apparently
appears to be promising in realizing low-power and low-cost
nodes communicating over a short range. Therefore, in this
paper, these two technologies, together with ZigBee, which is
specifically designed for WSN, are quantitatively evaluated in
relation to energy consumption. In addition, based on the
energy consumption a quantitative evaluation for raw data
transmission vs. in-sensor processing is also conducted, and the
results are presented in this article.

The ZigBee protocol defines three types of devices in order

to support multiple network topologies such as mesh, star and
cluster tree networks. These devices, referred to as ZigBee
Coordinator (ZC), ZigBee Router (ZR) and ZigBee End Device
(ZED), vary in terms of resources, capabilities and cost. For
example, the ZC, which acts as a central coordinator in both
star and cluster tree topologies is the most resourceful device in
terms of both its memory and the processing power. The ZR
not only performs application functions but also acts as an
intermediate router to relay data/information among connected
nodes in both the mesh and cluster tree topologies. Unlike ZC
and ZR, which are fully functional devices (FFD), the devices
capable of performing both the application and routing
functions, a ZED is a reduced functional device (RED) as it can
only communicate to its parent node, i.e. a ZC or a ZR.

The remainder of the paper is organized as follows. In

section II, the related work is discussed. In section III, an
overview of the ZigBee, BLE and Wi-Fi is given. The
simulation assumptions and parameters are described in section
IV. The results and the supporting discussion are presented in
section V. In section VI, the concluding remarks are given.
II.

OVERVIEW OF ZIGBEE, BLE, AND WI-FI

RELATED WORK

To the best of authors knowledge, no such work is to be

found in the published literature in which the above mentioned
wireless technologies are evaluated with in-sensor processing
for data intensive applications. However, comparative studies
related to the wireless technologies alone and in-sensor
processing are discussed in the following.

In order to allow devices to achieve a long operational

lifetime by switching them in to sleep modes whenever
possible, the ZigBee protocol supports beacon and non-beacon
enabled networks. In beacon mode, a ZR periodically transmits
special messages called beacons to inform other devices about
its presence, thus enabling a freshly awakened device to relay
its data to a router and switch back to sleep mode. On the other
hand, in non-beacon mode, an end-device, once activated from
sleep mode, senses the carrier and if the carrier is available, it
transmits the data to a router by means of a continuously active
receiver. In case where the carrier is unavailable, the enddevice waits for a random time period and then follows the
same procedure until it transmits the desired data. Upon
successful communication, the end-device switches back to
sleep mode.

Authors in [9] discussed differed aspects such as

transmission time, security, coding efficiency, power
consumption etc. of Bluetooth, ultra wide band, ZigBee and
Wi-Fi. However, this study does not include an energy
consumption based comparative analysis in relation to different
data loads, which is required in order to choose an appropriate
wireless technology for data intensive monitoring applications.
An experimental study involving Bluetooth, ZigBee and
IEEE 802.15.4 for bidirectional communication between
ground stations and high-speed trains is performed in [10]. The
study mainly focuses on the connectivity time and throughput
in above mentioned application scenario.

Based on IEEE 802.15.4 specified MAC and PHY layers,

the ZigBee transceivers are operated on un-licensed industrial,
scientific and medical (ISM) radio spectrums; 2.4 GHz
globally, 868 MHz in Europe and 915 MHz in the USA. At
2.4 GHz, a total of 16 channels, each supporting data rate of
250 kbps, are allocated. The typical communication range of
ZigBee transceivers is up to 100 meters and the network size of
the ZigBee controller can grow up to 65,536 nodes. In order to
secure the communication, the 128-AES algorithm is
supported.

In relation to in-sensor processing, different architectures are

evaluated for high-sample rate wireless vibration monitoring in
[4]. In these architectures, both the raw data transmission and
in-sensor processing scenarios are analyzed. However, raw
data transmission is only analyzed in relation to IEEE 802.15.4
complaint radio communication.
In reference [5], authors compared both the raw data
transmission and different levels of in-sensor processing for an

520

either be connected to an access point (AP) or, to other Wi-Fi

enabled devices using ad-hoc mode. In AP mode, an access
point typically a router, is used to connect devices and enable
data sharing among them. On the other hand, in ad-hoc mode,
two Wi-Fi enabled devices can communicate in a point-topoint topology without requiring an intermediate device as in
case of the AP mode. In both the modes, it is necessary to
establish a connection before any actual data exchange can
commence.

B. Bluetooth Low-Energy
The Bluetooth standard, ratified as IEEE 802.15.1 in 2002,
was aimed at providing short range wireless connectivity, as an
alternate, to replace cables in order to connect computers,
keyboards, printer, headsets etc. Bluetooth devices
communicate in a master-slave structure, where one master can
have a maximum of seven slaves in a network termed as
piconet. A master can communicate to slaves in a point-topoint or point-to-multipoint fashion. However, a slave can only
communicate to a master in point-to-point topology. The
devices in one piconet can communicate with devices in other
piconets, thus forming a larger network known as a scatternet.

At 2.4 GHz frequency spectrum, the 802.11b/g is specified

to use 11 overlapping channels, only 3 of which are nonoverlapped. Each channel is 22 MHz wide. Unlike 802.11b,
which achieves a maximum data rate of 11 Mbps with direct
spread spectrum (DSSS), the 802.11g employs orthogonal
frequency division multiplexing (OFDM) to achieve data rate
of 54 Mbps. The 802.11n, in addition to the 2.4 GHz spectrum,
can also be operated at 5 GHz. With this wider channel
bandwidth (i.e 40 MHz) and the adoption of multiple-inputmultiple-output (MIMO) antennas, the maximum achievable
data rate for 802.11n is 600 Mbps.

Bluetooth specifications can be classified into three

protocols standards, namely, Bluetooth classic, Bluetooth highspeed (HS) and Bluetooth low-energy (BLE). The Bluetooth
classic, with its revised versions of the original Bluetooth
standard, provides data rate of up to 3 Mbps. The maximum
data of the Bluetooth HS, in which the actual data transfer
takes places over Wi-Fi, is 24 Mbps. Unlike, Bluetooth classic
and HS, the BLE is targeted to enable short range wireless
communication with an emphasis on low-data rate energy
constrained applications. In addition to low-power, the aim of
BLE is to enable the design of low-cost and less complex radio
transceivers for both cost and resource (i.e. memory) sensitive
applications.

IV.

In order to quantitatively compare ZigBee, BLE and Wi-Fi

communication for different data loads, the energy
consumption is estimated using a simplified model for each of
these protocols. In order to compare the energy consumption
associated with raw data transmission to that of in-sensor
processing, communication protocols are modeled for the
maximum theoretical throughput achievable under ideal
channel conditions. The objective of such a modeling is to
firstly evaluate in-sensor processing solutions to the best
possible solutions for raw data transmission. Additionally,
more realistic communication models should only be adopted if
in-sensor processing solutions lag behind the raw data
transmission solutions in terms of both the performance and
energy consumption.

In a similar manner to ZigBee, the BLE also operates at 2.4

GHz ISM band. With 40 2 MHz channels, it supports a
maximum data rate of 1 Mbps. The BLE uses frequency
hopping in order to counteract interference from other devices.
However, unlike classical Bluetooth, BLE devices operate in
the same frequency for longer times in order to simplify timing
requirements.
C. Wi-Fi
Based on the IEEE 802.11 standard, the aim of the Wi-Fi is
to provide high-speed wireless connectivity to devices
operating in Local Area Networks (LAN). The 802.11 standard
provides the specifications to implement both the MAC and
PHY layers at the 2.4, 5, and 60 GHz frequency bands. With its
first standard 802.11b released in 1997, the 802.11 standard has
undergone several revisions, and currently, the 802.11b/g/n are
popular choices in both personal and commercial WLANs
worldwide.

A. Assumptions
In this quantitative evaluation, a point-to-point wireless
communication between two nodes, A and B as shown in Fig.
2, is assumed. In addition, it is also assumed that both the
nodes are equipped with compatible hardware technologies and
therefore, meet typical performance specifications. In this
point-to-point communication, node A, acting as a central
node, is powered through the main supply and is therefore,
active all the time. Node B, which is the actual sensing node,
acquires the desired data and transmits to node A. However, in
order to conserve energy at node B, the RF module is assumed

In order to exchange data, the Wi-Fi enabled devices may

TABLE I.
A COMPARISON OF DIFFERENT PARAMETERS FOR ZIGBEE,
BLE AND WI-FI
Standard
IEEE Specs
Frequency
spectrum
Topology
Network size
Data rate (Mbsps)
System resources
Range (m)
Number of
channels
Security

ZigBee
802.15.4
868/915 MHz;
2.4 GHz
Star, mesh,
cluster tree
65536
0.02 0.25
4 kB 32 kB
< 100
1/10/16

BLE
802.15.1
2.4 GHz

128-AES

128-AES

Star, point-topoint
Not defined
1
< 50
40

SIMULATION SETUP

Wi-Fi
802.11 b/g/n
2.4 GHz, 5
GHz
Start, point-topoint
32
11/ 54/600
1 MB+
< 100
11-14 (3
orthogonal)
SSID

Node B
(Sensor Node)

Node A
(Central Node)

Connection establishement
Data
Acknowledgement
Data
Acknowledgement

Figure 2. Typical point-to-point wireless communication mechanism

521

connection time of 400 ms is used, which is measured using a

BLE112 module that integrates the CC2540. The measured
connection time corresponds to the following specification: an
advertisement interval of 32 ms, a distance of 30 m, and a
transmission power of 0 dBm. The maximum theoretical
throughput of 488.4 kbps is used. Other parameters associated
with the BLE transceiver used for the evaluation are given in
Table II.

to be in the deep sleep state until there is a sufficient amount

of data buffered in node B, to be transmitted. Once the
required amount of data is buffered in node B, the RF module
is activated from its deep sleep state, and the necessary
communication is carried out so as to establish a connection.
Following on from this, the actual data is transferred from node
B to node A. For each data packet transmitted, the sensing
node receives a positive acknowledgement. Once the desired
data has been transferred, node B is once again switched to the
deep sleep state so as to conserve energy.

Wi-Fi In relation to distributed sensor nodes that are

typically required to communicate without any infrastructure,
the ad hoc mode topology best suits the requirements of such
nodes. In addition, the shorter connection time of the ad hoc
mode as compared to the AP mode enables sensor nodes to
conserve energy by staying in sleep modes for longer periods.
Therefore, in this study, the two (the sensing and the central)
nodes are assumed to be communicating in the ad hoc mode.
The sensing node, once activated from its sleep mode, acquires
the data and then enables Wi-Fi module. Following on from
this, it scans the channels so as to obtain information about the
central node, which is always active and periodically transmits
information its existence in the form of beacons. The time
required to establish the connection is considered 4 seconds
[14]. Once the connection is established, the acquired data is
transmitted in frames of 2346 bytes. In each frame, the
maximum allowable payload of 2312 bytes is set to compute
the energy consumption. The aforementioned payload size,
under ideal channel conditions for the IEEE 802.11g standard,
enables a maximum theoretical throughput of 33.7 Mbps to be
achieved. In order to quantitatively evaluate the energy
consumption of a Wi-Fi transceiver, the timings and power
consumption associated with the Wi-Fi chipset CC3000 [15]
are used. The details regarding different parameters associated
with the Wi-Fi that are used in the simulation are given in
Table II.

B. Transceivers specifications
In the following section, the details regarding performance
and power consumption, associated with the practical chipsets,
that are used in the simulation model, are described.
ZigBee In relation to ZigBee, an IEEE 802.15.4 compliant
RF transceiver CC2520 [11] is used. The maximum
transmission throughput is specified as 250 kbps. The CC250
can be switched into deep sleep mode, LPM2, in which it
typically consumes 30 nA and takes 0.5 ms to switch from
LPM2 to either receive (RX) or transmit (TX) mode. In TX
mode transmitting at 0 dBm, it typically consumes 25.8 mA.
The maximum payload, i.e. 102 bytes for a data packet of 127
bytes is used so as to minimize the packet overhead and hence
achieve the maximum performance. The maximum throughput
of 176 kbps, which is obtained by measuring the round trip for
two CC2520 transceivers, is used in the simulation model. The
different details regarding the CC2520 RF transceiver are
summarized in Table II.
Bluetooth In relation to BLE, the parameters such as power
consumption, data throughput, and transition time associated
with the BLE chipset CC2540 are obtained from its
manufacturers specifications [12]-[13]. In order to establish a
connection, the sensing node, once activated from its sleep
mode, enters into the advertising mode and periodically
transmits the advertisement packets. The central node,
configured as an initiator, responds to an advertisement packet
with a connection request. Once the connection is established,
the sensing node communicates as a slave whereas the central
node assumes responsibilities as a master node. The connection
time depends on several factors such as the distance between
the two nodes, the transmission power, and the advertisement
interval. For the results presented in this paper, the average

10

DETAILED PARAMETERS OF ZIGBEE, BLUETOOTH AND WIFI

MODULES USED IN EVALUATION

Current
cons.

Standard
ZigBee
Bluetooth
Chipset
(CC2520)
(CC2540)
Operating Voltage (V)
3.0
3.0
Deep sleep (uA)
0.03
0.4
Idle mode (mA)
1.6
N.A
RX mode (mA)
18.5
15.8
TX mode ( mA)
25.8
21.0
Sleep to TX/RX time (ms)
0.5
0.5
Connection time (ms)
15
400
Data rate (Mbps)
0.25
1
Data packet size (bytes)
127
47
Maximum payload size (bytes)
102
37
Ack. packet size (bytes)
11
10**
*Shut-down ; **Data PDU without payload

RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS

ZigBee
Energy consumption (J)

TABLE II.

V.

Based on ideal channel conditions and maximum theoretical

throughputs as specified in the previous section, the energy
consumption associated with ZigBee, BLE and Wi-Fi enabled
sensing nodes for different data loads are shown in Fig. 3. For a
given amount of data to be transmitted, the energy

Wi-Fi
(CC3000)
3.6
0.5*
N.A
92.0
190.0
60*
4000
54
2346
2312
14

10

10

10

10

10

BLE

Wi-Fi
-1

-2

-3

-4

10

10

10

10

10

10

10

Data to be transmitted (in bytes)

Figure 3. Energy consumption of the ZigBee, BLE and Wi-Fi for different
data loads

522

Fourier transform, etc. The one byte of resultant information

for each of the channels, as transferred from FPGA to the
micro-controller is wirelessly transmitted using an IEEE
802.15.4 compatible radio transceiver.

consumption in Fig. 3 is comprised of both the energy

consumed in establishing the connection and the energy
consumed in actual data transmission. Among three wireless
technologies analyzed, the ZigBee device, which takes shortest
connection time, consumes least energy in establishing
connection. On the other hand, the Wi-Fi, which takes longest
time to establish connection, also consumes highest amount of
energy in establishing the connection. By comparing the
energy consumption shown in Fig. 3, the ZigBee better suits
for small amount of data to be transmitted, i.e. up to 500 bytes.
The Wi-Fi, on the other hand, consumes least amount of energy
so as to transmit 800 kB or more data. For a wide range of data
transmission i.e. 500 bytes to 800 kB, the BLE results in
energy efficient solutions.

For comparison purposes, the energy consumption

associated with in-sensor processing of vibration data vs. raw
data transmission using ZigBee, BLE or Wi-Fi is shown in Fig.
4. In this figure, the energy consumption of 9.4 mJ as reported
for the processing of a single data set is extrapolated for up to
six data sets. This enables a comparison to be made of insensor processing with raw data transmission for a data size of
practical importance. Based on this comparison, it is evident
that the in-sensor processing for the high-sample rate vibration
based condition monitoring is an energy efficient solution
when compared with popular short range wireless technologies
operating in ideal conditions.

In relation to realizing data intensive monitoring

applications, a vibration based condition monitoring [4] and a
visual sensor node based particle characterization of fluids [5]
are studied. The availability of published results associated
with the performance and energy consumption of both the raw
data transmission as well as in-sensor processing provide the
motivation to evaluate these two applications.

In relation to the image based particle characterization of

fluid, each time the sensor node is activated it processes one
image frame so as to assess the number of particles in the fluid.
The total amount of data that corresponds to one frame is 256
kB. In order to compare the raw data transmission and insensor processing for this data intensive monitoring
application, an energy consumption of 6.47 mJ, that
corresponds to in-sensor processing of a single image frame
listed under strategy 16 in [5], is used. In this architecture
(referred to as strategy in the referenced article), all the
desired tasks associated with image processing for particle
characterization are performed in the sensor node using a Flash
based FPGA. The resultant information of 114 bytes is
transmitted using an IEEE 802.15.4 compatible radio
transceiver.

In the case of vibration based conditioning monitoring, the

data is acquired at a sampling rate of 50 kHz from three
channels, with a resolution of 16-bits. For each of the three
orthogonal channels/axes, a data set of 4 k samples is analyzed
at a given time. This translates the amount of raw data that is
required to be transmitted to 24 kB. In order to analyze
multiple data sets, as it is typically performed, in practical
applications, the data size can grow to more than 100 kB. For
raw data transmission of 24 kB to 100 kB as required for the
vibration based condition monitoring, each of the ZigBee, BLE
or Wi-Fi can be compared in relation to energy consumption as
shown in Fig. 3. In order to compare the energy consumption
associated with in-sensor processing and raw data transmission,
the energy consumption of 9.4 mJ, as reported for the above
mentioned application, is analyzed. In the corresponding insensor processing, a micro-controller acquires the data and
transfers it to the Field Programmable Gate Array (FPGA),
which then processes each channel in parallel. The actual
processing is comprised of several computationally intensive
signal processing tasks such as digital filtering, windowing,
10

The energy consumption associated with either transmitting

this raw data using ZigBee, BLE and Wi-Fi or processing all
data in the sensor node and transmitting a small amount of
resultant information, is shown in Fig. 4. In a similar manner to
the vibration processing, the energy consumption associated
with the processing of a single image frame is extrapolated to
demonstrate the comparison of processing multiple image
frames vs. raw data transmission. From Fig. 4, it can be
observed that the in-sensor processing for data intensive visual
monitoring application also results in an energy efficient
method as compared to for the raw data transmission.
Therefore, it can be concluded that for both of the above
mentioned data intensive applications, in-sensor processing is
the energy efficient solution.

Energy consumption (J)

ZigBee
10

10

10

10

10

BLE
Wi-Fi

Vibration-based monitoring
image-based monitoring

-1

VI.

-2

-3

-4

10

CONCLUSION

Based on the energy consumption, firstly, the three short

range wireless communication technologies namely, ZigBee,
BLE and Wi-Fi are quantitatively evaluated for different data
loads. In addition, these technologies are further evaluated in
relation to the energy consumption associated with the insensor processing of the two data intensive wireless monitoring
applications.
0

10

10

10

10

10

10

With a maximum theoretical throughput, as attainable under

ideal channel conditions, the ZigBee consumes the least
amount of energy for data loads of up to 500 bytes. On the
other hand, the Wi-Fi appears to be best suited to data loads of

Data to be transmitted (in bytes)

Figure 4. Energy consumption for the in-sensor processing [4]-[5] in relation to
that of raw data transmission using ZigBee, BLE and Wi-Fi

523

800 kB or more. For a wireless transmission load of less than

800 kB and more than 500 bytes, as is case for typical data
intensive monitoring applications, the results show that the
BLE results in minimum energy consumption.

[6]

In relation to the two data intensive monitoring applications

evaluated in this study, the vibration based monitoring
application generates more than 140 kB of raw data and image
based monitoring application generates more than 250 kB of
raw data. In comparison to the energy consumption associated
with the raw data transmission using the ZigBee, BLE or WiFi, the results show that the in-sensor processing is the most
energy efficient solution for both these applications.

[7]

[8]

[9]

REFERENCES
[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

T. Arampatzis, J. Lygeros, and S. Manesis,"A Survey of Applications of

Wireless Sensors and Wireless Sensor Networks," IEEE International
Symposium on Intelligent Control, Mediterrean Conference on Control
and Automation, pp.719,724, 27-29 June 2005.
C. Gomez, and J. Paradells, "Wireless home automation networks: A
survey of architectures and technologies," IEEE Magazine
on
Communications, vol.48, no.6, pp.92,101, June 2010.
X. Xin, V. Sundararajan and W. P. Brithinee, The application of
wireless sensor networks for condition monitoring in three-phase
induction motors, Electrical Insulation Conference and Electrical
Manufacturing Expo, 2007, pp. 445-448, October 2007.
K. Shahzad, P. Cheng,B. and Oelmann, Architecture exploration for a
high-performance and low-power wireless vibration analyzer, IEEE
Journal on Sensors, vol.13, no.2, pp.670-682, Feb. 2013.
M. Imran, K. Khursheed, N. Lawal, M. ONils and N. Ahmad,
Implementation of Wireless Vision Sensor Node for Characterization

[10]

[11]
[12]
[13]
[14]
[15]

524

of Magnetic Particles in Fluids, IEEE Transactions on Circuits and

Systems for Video Technology, vol.22, pp.1634 1643, Nov. 2012.
D. Anguita, D. Brizzolara, and G. Parodi, "Optical wireless
communication for underwater Wireless Sensor Networks: Hardware
modules and circuits design and implementation," OCEANS 2010 , vol.,
no., pp.1,8, 20-23 Sept. 2010
J. Zhang, L. Shan, H. Hu, and Y. Yang, "Mobile cellular networks and
wireless sensor networks: toward convergence," Communications
Magazine, IEEE , vol.50, no.3, pp.164,169, March 2012
T. Li, M. Huang, J. Shi, J. Yang, J. Yu, and J. Hu, "A pilot AMR system
based on WIMAX and WSN," 9th International Symposium on
Propagation and EM Theory (ISAPE), pp.1176,1179, Nov. 29 2010Dec. 2 2010.
L. Jin-Shyan, S. Yu-Wei, and S. Chung-Chou, "A Comparative Study of
Wireless Protocols: Bluetooth, UWB, ZigBee, and Wi-Fi," 33rd Annual
Conference of the IEEE Industrial Electronics Society IECON, pp.46,51,
5-8 Nov. 2007.
J. Higuera,, E. Kartsakli, J. L Valenzuela, L. Alonso, A. Laya, R.
Martinez, and A. Aguilar, A., "Experimental Study of Bluetooth, ZigBee
and IEEE 802.15.4 Technologies on Board High-Speed Trains," 75th
IEEE Conference on Vehicular Technology (VTC Spring), pp.1,5, 6-9
May 2012.
CC2520 Datasheet, Dallas, TX: Texas Instruments, [Online 2014].
Available at www.ti.com.
CC2540, Datasheet, Dallas, TX: Texas Instruments, [Online 2014].
Available at www.ti.com.
S. Kapath, Measuring Bluetooth Low Energy Power Consumption
Application Note AN092, [Online 2014], Available at www.ti.com
Libelium WiFi Module, Networking Guide. [Online 2014], Available at
www.libelium.com
CC3000 Datasheet, Dallas, TX: Texas Instruments, [Online 2014].
Available at www.ti.com.