Survey of WSN Technology Based Reliable and

Efficient Active RFID

Raed Abdulla

School of Engineering

Asia Pacific University of Technology & Innovation (APU)

Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia

raed@apu.edu.my

Widad Ismail

School of Electrical and Electronic Engineering

Universiti Sains Malaysia

Pulau Pinang, Malaysia

eewidad@eng.usm.my

Abstract— a wireless sensor network allows low-power, low-

cost, and wireless multifunctional sensor devices that

communicate over short distances and are small in size. In the

following paper, a survey of WSN technology based reliable and

efficient active RFID is presented. First, the accessible wireless

standards are evaluated based on preferred criteria such as

reliable end-to-end communication, low power consumption,

latency, throughput and long range are crucial requirements.

Secondly, advantages and performance issues of each wireless

standard are presented and discussed.

Key words — WSN, ZigBee, active RFID, mesh topology.

I. INTRODUCTION

Sensing and communication are the two major functions of

the WSN, while energy conservation and routing mechanism

are two hot topics [1]-[2]. A WSN is composed of a significant

number of sensor nodes that can be deployed on the ground, in

the air, in vehicles, or inside buildings [3]. A sensor node

consists of a sensor to monitor and control physical parameters

at different locations, radio transceiver, a microcontroller

(MCU), and a power source. WSN is widely used for health,

home, control, communications, computing, surveillance,

intelligence, reconnaissance, and targeting systems [1].

Even though most of the related work on WSN based RFID

concerns with the improvements of energy efficient protocols,

a study tackling all the aforementioned requirements was still

lacking. In this work, power consumption, long range, reliable

end-to-end communication, latency and throughput were

considered when WSN-based low-power are analyzed for the

purpose of building an active RFID system. We will

concentrate on ZigBee and how the ZigBee-Enabled Active

RFID. We are interested in ZigBee because ZigBee is key

wireless technologies that serve a wide range of applications as

separate solutions, and can provide enhanced performance

when integrated within a common system.

To recognize the value of enabling a wireless connection

between the RFID tags and reader, and on the other hand

between the RFID reader and computer network, the next

review is on the evaluation of the existing wireless standards.

Options for making a wireless connection, but choosing a

standard-based technology over a proprietary solution is

beneficial, since the available wireless standards obtain more

flexibility and universal functionality [4].

In deciding which standard is the best choice, the accessible

wireless standards are evaluated based on preferred criteria.

For the monitoring and tracking application of an RFID

system, reliable end-to-end communication, low power

consumption, end-to-end delay of packet (Latency), delivery

ratio (Throughput) and long range are crucial requirements,

while support for a large network size and low cost are

additional advantages.

Latency is the end-to-end delay of packet, and latency

requirements depend on the type of application. For example,

in an of environment surveillance application, when an event is

detected, sensor nodes should be able to report the local

processing result in a timely manner so that appropriate action

can be promptly taken. Throughput, or delivery ratio, is the

ratio of packets received by the sink to the packets sent by the

source. Like latency, throughput requirements vary with

different applications. Some applications need to constantly

sample the environment and transfer many packets. In other

applications, such as fire detection, it might be enough for a

single report to be received by the sink [5]-[6].

II. SURVEY OF WSN TECHNOLOGY BASED RELIABLE AND

EFFICIENT ACTIVE RFID

Many different protocols have been defined under the IEEE

standards, as shown in Fig. 1 [7].

Fig. 1. The 802 wireless spaces a graphical comparison

In this work, four specific standards for WSN-based low-

power wireless communication technologies are analyzed for

2013 IEEE 11th Malaysia International Conference on Communications

26th - 28th November 2013, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia

978-1-4799-1532-3/13/$31.00 ©2013 IEEE 116

the purpose of building an active RFID system, and one of

these is implemented further on.

1. IEEE802.11 / Wi-Fi

2. IEEE802.15.1 / Bluetooth

3. IEEE 802.15.3 / Ultra Wideband (UWB)

4. IEEE802.15.4 / ZigBee

The coverage area of wireless communication is restricted

by the ability of the wireless device used. A device that gives a

large coverage area will be very costly. Also, the more

powerful a wireless device is, the more power it will consume.

Moreover, it will produce high amounts of electromagnetic

radiation, which can be hazardous to human health [8].

A. Wi-Fi

Wi-Fi (IEEE 802.11) is a set of Wireless Local Area

Network (WLAN) standards and was developed by the IEEE

LAN/MAN Standards Committee. This protocol is usually

utilized in PC-based systems because it was developed to

extend or substitute for a wired LAN [9]. The original IEEE

802.11 defines three PHYs, one based on diffused infra-red

radiation and two based on 2.4 GHz Industrial, Scientific and

Medical (ISM) band [10]. The main advantage of this wireless

system is that its access points can provide robust security

mechanisms and are easily modified to act as RFID readers.

Furthermore, the cost of chipsets is falling since there is intense

competition among vendors due to the popularity of this

technology [11]. The IEEE 802.11 architecture consists of a

number of components that interact to support a wireless LAN,

providing station mobility transparently to upper layers. The

basic cell is called a Basic Service Set (BSS), which is a set of

fixed or mobile stations. If a station moves outside its BSS, it

can no longer directly talk with other members of the BSS.

Based on the BSS, IEEE 802.11 employs the self-determining

basic service set (IBSS) and extended network configurations.

As shown in Fig. 2 IBSS operation is possible while IEEE

802.11 stations are capable to communicate directly without

any AP [12].

Fig. 2. IBSS and ESS configurations of Wi-Fi networks

The communication range is approximately 100 m [13].

Wi-Fi was designed for high data rate applications (from

1Mbps up to 144Mbps). These features make it suitable for

new applications of RFID when higher data rate is required

[14]. However, its power consumption is rather high,

approximately 300 mW for 802.11 b, and the short autonomy

of a battery power supply still remains a significant

disadvantage, increasing the difficulty of adapting this

technology to the RFID tag system [15].

B. Bluetooth

Bluetooth (IEEE 802.15.1) is standard for Wireless

Personal Area Network (WPAN). The Bluetooth research was

begun in the mid-1990s by Ericsson and uses a master/slave-

based MAC protocol, designed to present a user-friendly

interface and provide secure and reliable communication [16].

The Bluetooth protocol allows for low-cost, low power and

short range wireless communications in WPAN at 2.4 GHz

ISM band between Bluetooth devices. Additionally, Bluetooth

enables ad-hoc wireless networking, which allows formation

of a network without base stations [17], and this technology

can replace the hardwired connections of portable and/or fixed

electronic devices over relatively short distances. It can be

used for both voice transmission and data transfers, such as

downloading or uploading programs [18]. Fig. 3 [19] shows a

diagram of the RFID-enhanced Bluetooth. Compared to Wi-

Fi, Bluetooth have the same indoor range of around 300ft,

while the battery life is much longer than for Wi-Fi devices.

However, the Bluetooth data rate is much less than that of

Wi-Fi, at 0.8Mbps throughout [20]. As a result, these features

make it suitable for new applications of RFID when low

amounts of information are to be sent. At the same time, a

preventive issue of the Bluetooth technology is its time-

consuming device discovery process, which can take tens of

seconds to find the device to be connected [21]. Furthermore,

the Bluetooth discovery process is not scalable to perform in

the presence of many devices [22], and the reliability of the

Bluetooth physical layer is lower, making the technology a

little more likely to suffer from interference [23].

Fig. 3. RFID-enhanced Bluetooth connectivity

From the above-mentioned factors, many challenges would

be created by using Bluetooth in an active RFID architecture;

for example, multiple tags communicating with a reader at one

time would result in unsupportable complexity and latency in

the system. Furthermore, the tags could produce severe

2013 IEEE 11th Malaysia International Conference on Communications

26th - 28th November 2013, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia

978-1-4799-1532-3/13/$31.00 ©2013 IEEE 117

network collision rates and poor network performance. Thus,

Bluetooth is not especially suited to form large networks and

cannot deliver reliable multi-hop data transfers, but is more

suitable for to temporary peer-to-peer communications and

unprompted data transfers.

C. UWB

UWB (IEEE 802.15.3) has gathered much attention as an

indoor short-range and high-speed wireless communication

technology [15] UWB has the ability to achieve low power

consumption, low-cost implementation and high throughput

[24]. The main characteristic of UWB is that its bandwidth is

over 110 Mbps, making it suitable for many multimedia

applications such as audio and video delivery in home

networking; it can also act as a cable replacement for a high

speed serial bus such as USB 2.0. Fig. 4 shows an example of a

WSN using UWB link to pass data from the tags to the

corresponding reader, and the reader then forwarding data to

the WLAN through ad-hoc functionality, with a reading field

of around 10 meters. Unfortunately, UWB downlink reception

from the base station to the tag is typically very composite and

consumes high power [25].

Fig. 4. Generic sensor networks architecture for UWB

Furthermore, the essential data rate from the work station to

the tag is very low. One advantage of using UWB in a RFID

system is that only a low transmission time is required,

compared to Wi-Fi and Bluetooth, because UWB was designed

for short range and high data rate applications [12].

However, the power consumption is still higher than Wi-Fi

and Bluetooth. A UWB network has limited memory and

computational capacity, which reduces its suitability for sensor

networking applications; also, like Bluetooth, the maximum

number of devices that can be affiliated in a UWB network is

limited to only 8 (7 slaves plus one master).

D. ZigBee

ZigBee (IEEE 802.15.4) is a wireless technology that

builds upon the Institute of Electrical and Electronics

Engineers (IEEE) standard 802.15.4, which defines the

physical (PHY) and Medium Access Control (MAC) layers,

and works on a low data rate standard [26]-[27]. The ZigBee

Alliance is an industry association that supports the use of the

technology, enabling it for WSNs [28]. Then, the ZigBee

Alliance and the IEEE decided to join forces and ZigBee is the

commercial name for this technology [29]. IEEE and ZigBee

Alliance have been working continually to specify the entire

protocol stack and establish layers for security, wireless

networks, and application framework [30]. Fig. 5 shows

ZigBee using the IEEE 802.15.4 physical and MAC layers.

IEEE 802.15.4 defines specifications for the lower two layers

of the protocol, PHY and MAC; meanwhile ZigBee Alliance

intends to provide the upper layers of the protocol stack, from

the network layer to the application layer [29]. ZigBee

standard supports low-speed, low-cost wireless networking

with long device battery lifetimes and devices as well as low

latency [31].

ZigBee technology is suitable for a wide range of

monitoring activities, including building automation, health

monitoring, automated meter reading equipment, grain storage,

remote controls, heating and cooling control devices, fans, and

structural integrity [32]-[33]-[34]. Furthermore, ZigBee is the

suitable wireless technology to be employed in in the fields like

Industrial Automation, Home Area Network, Patient

monitoring and monitoring systems [35].

Fig. 5. The ZigBee Standard and IEEE 802.15.4

Because the ZigBee standard is based on IEEE 802.15.4,

implementing a ZigBee network has similar requirements to an

802.15.4 network. Fig. 6 shows how ZigBee can be

implemented in active RFID devices. The technology consists

of three different physical device types that operate in a self-

organizing network application: ZigBee Coordinators (ZC),

ZigBee Routers (ZR), which are Full-Function Devices

(FFDs), and ZigBee End Devices (ZED), which are Reduced-

Function Devices (RFDs). These physical devices are used to

create a ZigBee network [36]. The ZC acts as the network head

ZigBee

or User Application / Profiles

Application framework

Network and Security

Layers

PHY Layer

2.4

GHz

868/915

MHz Layer

Applications

MAC Layer

MAC Layer

ApplicationZigBee Stack Silicon Profiles

User

ZigBee

Alliance

Platform

IEEE

802.15.4

2013 IEEE 11th Malaysia International Conference on Communications

26th - 28th November 2013, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia

978-1-4799-1532-3/13/$31.00 ©2013 IEEE 118

and is typically mains powered, and there can only be one PAN

(Personal Area Network) coordinator in a network. The ZR,

which is an FFD, can perform the function of routing the data

between the nodes. ZEDs are the leaf nodes, and can check the

availability of the nodes to send data, have minimum

functionality, and as reduced-function devices are always

battery-powered [37]. The ZC starts by sending a beacon frame

to all its neighbors, and when a node accepts the framework of

the beacon, it can be sent with a request to join the network

[38].

Fig. 6. Implementing ZigBee in active RFID devices

III. BLUETOOTH VS. ZIGBEE FOR RFID

Power consumption in a sensor network is of primary

significance and should be minimized [39]. On the other hand,

efficient processing and protocol management overhead is

required for ad-hoc networking [40]. Table I provides a

comparison between Bluetooth and ZigBee.

For applications where higher data rates are significant,

Bluetooth clearly has the advantage since it can support a wider

range of traffic types than ZigBee. Bluetooth is almost

certainly the closest peer to WSNs, but power consumption

was not given importance in its design and turning on and off

consumes a great deal of energy; therefore, Bluetooth is not

appropriate for applications that need ultra-low power

consumption.

TABLE I. COMPARISON BETWEEN BLUETOOTH AND ZIGBEE

In contrast, the ZigBee protocol places major importance

on power management; it was developed for low power

consumption and prolonged battery life. Bluetooth nodes have

lower battery life compared to ZigBee, and the network

flexibility of ZigBee is much higher than Bluetooth, as it

allows different topologies. Finally, ZigBee facilitates a larger

number of nodes (more than 65,000), while the maximum

number of Bluetooth devices in one network building cell is 8

(7 slaves plus one master) [12].

IV. ZIGBEE NETWORK TOPOLOGIES

The ZigBee standard supports four multiple topology

network configurations, namely, star, peer-to-peer, mesh and

cluster tree topology. All topologies are established by only

one coordinator [41]-[42]. Fig. 7 illustrates all the ZigBee

topologies. Advantages and disadvantages of each kind of

topology depend on the individual application or situation.

A. Star Topology

Star topology is a basic topology, consisting of one

coordinator device and a number of ZigBee endpoints devices

that are all connected directly to the coordinator. Low latency

in the star topology network is the main advantage. On the

other hand, all devices have to be in range of the coordinator,

and this restriction makes it suitable only for small networks

such as one composed of a single data collector and a number

of sensor endpoints within close range.

Fig. 7. ZigBee Topologies

B. Peer to Peer Topology

In this topology, each device has the capacity to

communicate directly to any other device within its range.

Therefore, in peer-to-peer topology, non-beacon mode is more

efficient than beacon mode. Even though it has lower latency

than star topology, it necessitates most of the devices to be

routers, which will lead to a small size network.

Specifications Bluetooth ZigBee

Standards IEEE 802.15.1 IEEE 802.15.4

Data rate 1 Mb 20-250 kb

Latency (time to establish a new link)

< 10 s 30 ms

Frequencies 2.4 GHz 2.4 GHz

No. of nodes 8 65,000

Modulation FHSS DSSS

Network topology Ad hoc Pico nets Ad hoc, star, mesh

Data type Audio, graphics, pictures

Small data packet

Battery life 1 week > 1 year

Extendibility No Yes

2013 IEEE 11th Malaysia International Conference on Communications

26th - 28th November 2013, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia

978-1-4799-1532-3/13/$31.00 ©2013 IEEE 119

C. Cluster Tree Topology

The cluster tree topology is essentially a combination of

star and mesh. In this topology, unlike mesh topology, no

router can have multiple parents, and as a result the system has

only limited self-healing capabilities. Bottlenecks might also

occur in the backbone links of the network. The routers in

cluster-tree networks utilize beacon-oriented communication,

while mesh networks allow peer-to-peer communication and

do not emit beacons.

D. Mesh Topology

Using mesh topology, each node may communicate directly

with any other node within range by giving many possible

routes during the network. Further, any end device in the

network is able to choose any of its nearby routers as its parent,

and such a feature makes the mesh topology a more

complicated, very robust topology. It also has the ability to

incorporate a large number of devices into a self-healing

network, where badly performing routes can be ignored.

Furthermore, mesh networks are easily deployed, maintained,

and scaled up or down according to the application. Therefore,

the ZigBee mesh networking protocol is selected as the

communications standard for this work.

ZEDs cannot route and always give their data to the parent

node (ZC or ZR). When joining a network, the ZED selects a

parent and receives an announcement with a short 16 bit

address. If the ZED is restarted, it is confirmed as an orphan

and instantaneously its router retransmits the 16 bit address to

the network again. Repeated failure of this process starts the

association process again, so that it can be engaged to another

parent and as a result, the throughputs will increase [43]. The

main tasks of a router consist of redirecting information within

the network and storing ZED information in a buffer until the

ZED wakes up, as the ZED periodically sleeps and broadcasts

a data request frame upon waking up. However, with this

frame, the parent can send the data stored in its buffer to the

ZED. In ZigBee mesh networks, the ZR and the ZC find out

the route to the destination point by using messages at network

level as (Route Request) and (Route Reply).

The messages will pass through the ZRs until they arrive at

their destination, even if there is no direct communication.

However, the ZR will look for a new route for the sake of

sending the information to the destination. These topologies

(partial-mesh and full-mesh) can be built with increasing

numbers of ZRs, with a corresponding increase in energy

consumption [44].

V. CONCLUSION

Based on a comparison between the available wireless

protocols, ZigBee offers trustworthy mesh networking, very

long battery life and low overall cost. Furthermore, the benefits

of integrating ZigBee technology into an RFID system have

been discussed. Such an integration scenario will assist the

communication link techniques in the RFID system to achieve

reliable communication by controlling packet transmission

overhead, saving power consumption and extending the

reading range. In short, RFID and ZigBee are key wireless

technologies that serve a wide range of applications as separate

solutions, and can provide enhanced performance when

integrated within a common system. Finally, ZigBee is

preferred for this research due to its mesh network capabilities

and its flexibility for accessing more communication paths than

Wi-Fi, Bluetooth or UWB.

REFERENCES

[1] F. Akyildiz, S. Weilian, Y. Sankarasubramaniam, and E.

Cayirci, "A survey on sensor networks," IEEE Communications

Magazine, vol. 40, pp. 102-114, 2002.

[2] X. Kenan, W. Quanhong, H. Hassanein, and G. Takahara,

"Optimal wireless sensor networks (WSNs) deployment:

minimum cost with lifetime constraint," in (WiMob'2005), IEEE

International Conference on Wireless and Mobile Computing,

Networking and Communications, 2005.

[3] D. Culler, D. Estrin, and M. Srivastava, "Guest Editors'

Introduction: Overview of Sensor Networks," IEEE Computer

Society, vol. 37, 2004, pp. 41-49.

[4] V. Sheridan, B. Tsegaye, and M. Walter, "ZigBee-Enabled

RFID Reader Network," Bsc.Thesis, WJ Communications, Inc.

WORCESTER POLYTECHNIC INSTITUTE, 2005.

[5] G. Lu, B. Krishnamachari, and C. S. Raghavendra, "An adaptive

energy-efficient and low-latency MAC for data gathering in

wireless sensor networks," in Proceedings18th International

Parallel and Distributed Processing Symposium, 2004, p. 224.

[6] Wei ye, John Heidmann, Deborah Estrin, "An Energy-Effficient

MAC protocol for Wireless Sensor Network", Information

Science Institute (ISI), University of Southern California. In

Proceedings of the IEEE Infocom, IEEE, 2002, pp. 1567-1576.

[7] John's Specification. ZigBee Mission, 2006.

[8] A. Zamanian and C. Hardiman, "Electromagnetic Radiation and

Human Health: A Review of Sources and Effects," High

Frequency Electronics, in “Summit Technical Media, vol. 4, pp.

16–26, 2005.

[9] IEEE. Supplement to IEEE Standard for Information

Technology- Telecommunications and Information Exchange

Between Systems- Local and Metropolitan Area Networks-

Specific Requirements- Part 11: Wireless LAN Medium Access

Control (MAC) and Physical Layer (PHY) Specifications:

Higher- Speed Physical Layer Extension in the 2.4 GHz Band.

IEEE Std 802.11b-1999, i-90, 2000.

[10] A. Ahmad and J. Wiley, Wireless and mobile data

networks: Wiley Online Library, 2005.

[11] D. Seetharam and R. Fletcher, "Battery Powered RFID," in In

proceedings of 1st ACM Workshop on Convergence of RFID

and Wireless Sensor Networks and their Applications

(SenseID), at the Fifth ACM Conference on Embedded

Networked Sensor Systems, Sydney, Australia, 2007.

[12] L. Jin-Shyan, S. Yu-Wei, and S. Chung-Chou, "A Comparative

Study of Wireless Protocols: Bluetooth, UWB, ZigBee, and Wi-

Fi," in IECON 2007. 33rd Annual Conference of the IEEE

Industrial Electronics Society, Taipei, Taiwan, 2007.

[13] J. S. King, "An IEEE 802.11 wireless LAN security white

paper" Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, University of

California, 2001.

[14] G. Anastasi, O. Farruggia, G. Lo Re, and M. Ortolani,

"Monitoring High-Quality Wine Production using Wireless

Sensor Networks," in HICSS '09. 42nd Hawaii International

Conference on System Sciences., Big Island, HI, 2009.

2013 IEEE 11th Malaysia International Conference on Communications

26th - 28th November 2013, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia

978-1-4799-1532-3/13/$31.00 ©2013 IEEE 120

[15] D. Porcino and W. Hirt, "Ultra-wideband radio technology:

potential and challenges ahead," IEEE Communications

Magazine, vol. 41, pp. 66-74, 2003.

[16] N. Baker, "ZigBee and Bluetooth strengths and weaknesses for

industrial applications," Computing & Control Engineering

Journal, vol. 16, pp. 20-25, 2005.

[17] IEEE, "Draft IEEE Standard for Information technology

Telecommunications and information exchange between

systems Local and metropolitan area networks Specific

requirements Part 11: Wireless Medium Access Control (MAC)

and Physical Layer (PHY) specifications: Amendment 6:

Medium Access Control (MAC) Security Enhancements

(Amendment to IEEE Std 802.11, 1999 Edition as amended by

IEEE Std 802.11g-2003 and IEEE Std 802.11h-2003)," IEEE

Std P802.11i/D10.0, 2004.

[18] Specification of the Bluetooth system, 2003.

[19] T. Salminen, S. Hosio, and J. Riekki, "Enhancing Bluetooth

connectivity with RFID," in (PerCom) Proc. 4th International

Conference on Pervasive Computing and Communications, Pisa,

Italy, 2006.

[20] B. E. Mennecke and T. J. Strader, Mobile commerce:

technology, theory, and applications, 2003.

[21] F. Siegemund and M. Rohs, "Rendezvous layer protocols for

Bluetooth-enabled smart devices," Personal and Ubiquitous

Computing, vol. 7, pp. 91-101, 2003.

[22] L. Aalto, N. Gthlin, J. Korhonen, and T. Ojala, "Bluetooth and

WAP push based location-aware mobile advertising system," in

Proceedings of the 2nd international conference on Mobile

systems, applications, and services, boston, USA , 2004 pp. 49-

58.

[23] A. Omar, "DESIGN AND IMPLEMENTATION OF SMART

WIRELESS SENSOR NETWORK," M.Sc. Thesis. Dept. of

Electronic, UNIVERSITE FERHAT ABBAS – SETIF, 2009.

[24] W. Hirt, "Ultra-wideband radio technology: overview and future

research," Computer Communications, vol. 26, pp. 46-52, 2003.

[25] M. Baghaei-Nejad, Z. Zou, D. S. Mendoza, H. Tenhunen, and L.

R. Zheng, "Enabling Ubiquitous Wireless Sensing by a Novel

RFID-Based UWB Module" in The First International

EURASIP Workshop on RFID Technology, RFID 2007, 24-25

September 2007, Vienna, Austria, 2007.

[26] P. Kinney, "Zigbee technology: Wireless control that simply

works," in Communications design conference, Kinney

Consulting LLC, 2003.

[27] R. A. Rashid, M. A. B. Sarijari, M. R. A. Rahim, and J. Skudai,

"Wireless Home Security and Automation System Utilizing

ZigBee based Multi-hop Communication," presented at the

(NCTT) National Conference on Telecommunication

Technology, Putrajaya, Malaysia, 2008.

[28] ZigBee Alliance. ZigBee Specification. ZigBee Alliance,

q4/2007 edition, 2007.

[29] IEEE, "IEEE Standard for Information technology-

Telecommunications and information exchange between

systems-Local and metropolitan area networks-Specific

requirements Part 15.4: Wireless Medium Access Control

(MAC) and Physical Layer (PHY) Specifications for Low-Rate

Wireless Personal Area Networks (WPANs) Amendment 2:

Alternative Physical Layer Extension to support one or more of

the Chinese 314-316 MHz, 430-434 MHz, and 779-787 MHz

bands," IEEE Std 802.15.4c-2009 (Amendment to IEEE Std

802.15.4-2006), pp. c1-21, 2009.

[30] S. Ondrej, B. Zdenek, F. Petr, and H. Ondrej, "ZigBee

Technology and Device Design," in ICN/ICONS/MCL 2006.

International Conference on Networking, International

Conference on Systems and International Conference on Mobile

Communications and Learning Technologies, pp. 129-129,

2006.

[31] A. Wheeler, "Commercial Applications of Wireless Sensor

Networks Using ZigBee," IEEE Communications Magazine vol.

45, pp. 70-77, 2007.

[32] Y. B. Lin, K. C. Chang, J. C. Chen, P. H. Wang, and L. S. Li,

"ZigBee Sensor Network for Structural Health Monitoring," in

4th International Conference on Earthquake Engineering.,

Taipei, Taiwan, 2006.

[33] H. Kim and O. Ayurzana, "Improvement of data receive ratio in

remote water meter system by upgrading sensor," International

Journal of Control, Automation and Systems, vol. 7, pp. 145-

150, 2009.

[34] H. Zhoul, X. Chen, X. Liu, and J. Yang, "Applications of Zigbee

wireless technology tomeasurement system in grain storage,"

Computer and Computing Technologies in Agriculture II, vol. 3,

pp. 2021-2029, 2009.

[35] Nagarajan, R.; Dhanasekaran, R., "Implementation of wireless

data transmission in monitoring and control," Communications

and Signal Processing (ICCSP), 2013 International Conference

on , vol., no., pp.83,87, 3-5 April 2013.

[36] P. Wotton, "Providing reliable sensing and control using ZigBee

wireless networks," RF DESIGN magazine, vol. 29(7), p.

18, 2006.

[37] P. Baronti, P. Pillai, V. W. C. Chook, S. Chessa, A. Gotta, and

Y. F. Hu, "Wireless sensor networks: A survey on the state of

the art and the 802.15. 4 and ZigBee standards," Computer

Communications, vol. 30(7), pp. 1655-1695, 2007.

[38] D. Gislason, Zigbee wireless networking: Newnes, 2008.

[39] Q. Shan, Y. Liu, G. Prosser, and D. Brown, "Wireless

intelligent sensor networks for refrigerated vehicle," in

Proceedings of the IEEE 6th Circuits and Systems Symposium

on Emerging Technologies: Frontiers of Mobile and Wireless

Communication, pp. 525-528, 2004.

[40] N. Baker, "ZigBee and Bluetooth strengths and weaknesses for

industrial applications," Computing & Control Engineering

Journal, vol. 16, pp. 20-25, 2005.

[41] I. Howitt and J. A. Gutierrez, "IEEE 802.15.4 low rate - wireless

personal area network coexistence issues," in WCNC. 2003

IEEE Wireless Communications and Networking., New Orleans,

LA, USA, pp. 1481-1486 vol.3, 2003.

[42] M. Armholt, S. Junnila, and I. Defee, "A Non-beaconing ZigBee

Network Implementation and Performance Study," in ICC '07.

IEEE International Conference on Communications, Glasgow,

Scotland, 2007.

[43] N. Magharei, R. Rejaie, and G. Yang, "Mesh or Multiple-Tree:

A Comparative Study of Live P2P Streaming Approaches," in

INFOCOM 2007. 26th IEEE International Conference on

Computer Communications. Anchorage , Alaska , USA, 2007,

pp. 1424-1432.

[44] J. M. Castillo-Secilla, P. C. Aranda, Outeirin, x, F. J. B. o, and

J. Olivares, "Experimental Procedure for the Characterization

and Optimization of the Power Consumption and Reliability in

ZigBee Mesh Networks," in Third International Conference on

Advances in Mesh Networks (MESH). Venice/Mestre, Italy, pp.

13-16, 2010.

2013 IEEE 11th Malaysia International Conference on Communications

26th - 28th November 2013, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia

978-1-4799-1532-3/13/$31.00 ©2013 IEEE 121