8/6/2019 Interference Automation Jan28
1/31
Empirical study of WirelessStandards for Home Automation
Chengjie Wu, Abu S. Saifullah and Yong Fu
8/6/2019 Interference Automation Jan28
2/31
Outline
Comparison between Wifi, Zigbee and Bluetooth (2
classes)
1. Packet reception rate (PRR)
Number of packets successfully received at receiver over total
number of packets sent by sender
2. Maximum communication range3. PRR under interference of Wifi AP
Performance of Zigbee under interference of Bluetooth
1. Packet lost rate
2. Anti interference
2
8/6/2019 Interference Automation Jan28
3/31
Outline
Comparison between Wifi, Zigbee and Bluetooth (2
classes)
1. Packet reception rate
2. Maximum communication range
3. PRR under interference of Wifi AP
Performance of Zigbee under interference of Bluetooth
1. Packet lost rate
2. Anti interference
3
8/6/2019 Interference Automation Jan28
4/31
Experimental setup
Testbed:
1. WIFI(802.11g): ConnectBlue cB-OWSPA 311
2. Bluetooth(Class 1): ConnectBlue cB-OEMSPA331
3. BlueTooth(Class 2): ConnectBlue cB-OEMSPA311
4. ZigBee(802.15.4): ConnectBlue cB-OZS331
Measurement:
1. PRR
2. Maximum communication range
3. Power Consumption (Current)
Scenarios Jolly Hall (Indoor)
Danforth Campus (Outdoor)
4
8/6/2019 Interference Automation Jan28
5/31
Scenario 1: line of sight
Campus Wifi: Channel 6;
Testing Wifi: Channel 11; Testing Zigbee: Channel 25
5
Sender Receiver
8/6/2019 Interference Automation Jan28
6/31
PRR (%) v.s. Distance (m)
100 100 100
96.8
100 100 100 100100 100 100 100100 100 100 100
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
12 24 36 48
WifiBluetooth C1
Bluetooth C2
Zigbee
6
8/6/2019 Interference Automation Jan28
7/31
Scenario 2: Drywall
7
Sender Receiver
8/6/2019 Interference Automation Jan28
8/31
PRR (%) v.s. No. of drywalls
100 100 98
87
100 100 100 100100 100 100
0
100 100 100 100
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
1 2 3 4
PRR
No. of drywalls
WifiBluetooth C1
Bluetooth C2
Zigbee
8
8/6/2019 Interference Automation Jan28
9/31
Scenario3: Different floors
9
Sender Receiver
8/6/2019 Interference Automation Jan28
10/31
PRR (%) v.s. No. of floors
100
90
0
100 100
0
100 100
0
100 100
00
20
40
60
80
100
120
1 2 3
PRR
No. of floors
wifiBluetooth C1
Bluetooth C2
Zigbee
10
8/6/2019 Interference Automation Jan28
11/31
Scenario 4: Outdoor
11
8/6/2019 Interference Automation Jan28
12/31
Max Communication Range
70
67
82
90
0 20 40 60 80 100
Wifi
Zigbee
Bluetooth Class2
Bluetooth Class1
Communication range (m)
12
8/6/2019 Interference Automation Jan28
13/31
Current
171
52
34
35
173
53
35
37
175
54
40
43
0 50 100 150 200
Wifi
Zigbee
Bluetooth C2
Bluetooth C1
Current (mA)
Max
Min
Base
13
8/6/2019 Interference Automation Jan28
14/31
Scenario 5: Interference under Wifi
Campus Wifi: Channel 6
Testing Wifi: Channel 6
Testing Zigbee: Ch. 17
(Coincide with Wifi Ch.
6)
14
Sender Receiver WUFI AP
8/6/2019 Interference Automation Jan28
15/31
PRR (%) v.s. Interference
95%
100%
100%
100%
56%
42%
100%
100%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 120%
Wifi
Zigbee
Bluetooth2
Bluetooth1
Video streaming
No Wifi Traffic
15
8/6/2019 Interference Automation Jan28
16/31
Comparison
16
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
PRRMax Comm
Range Power
Consumption
Bluetooth C1
Bluetooth C2
Zigbee
Wifi
8/6/2019 Interference Automation Jan28
17/31
Outline
Comparison between Wifi, Zigbee and Bluetooth (2
classes)
1. Packet reception rate
2. Maximum communication range
3. PRR under interference of Wifi AP
Performance of Zigbee under interference of Bluetooth
1. Packet lost rate (PLR)
PLR=1-PRR
2. Anti interference
18
8/6/2019 Interference Automation Jan28
18/31
Experiment setup
Testbed:
1. Tmote sky motes
2. One Mac book pro and one Dell Latitude D630
Scenarios:
1. A two bedroom apartment
2. Jolly Hall
Measurement:
1. Packet lost rate
2. Received Signal Strength Index (RSSI)
19
8/6/2019 Interference Automation Jan28
19/31
Scenario: Multiple Zigbee Sender
20
Bluetooth Master
Bluetooth Slave
Zigbee Sender
Zigbee Receiver
8/6/2019 Interference Automation Jan28
20/31
PLR v.s. Location of Zigbee Sender
0.0%
5.0%
10.0%
15.0%
20.0%
25.0%
P
LR
No Interference
Under Bluetooth
21
8/6/2019 Interference Automation Jan28
21/31
Scenario: Multiple Bluetooth Pairs
22
Bluetooth Master
Bluetooth Slave
Zigbee Sender
Zigbee Receiver
8/6/2019 Interference Automation Jan28
22/31
PLR v.s. Location of Bluetooth Pair
23
0.0%
2.0%
4.0%
6.0%
8.0%
10.0%
12.0%
14.0%
16.0%
18.0%
Bedroom1 Living Room Bedroom2 Kitchen None
PLR
8/6/2019 Interference Automation Jan28
23/31
Scenario: Jolly Hall 5th Floor
24
1
Bluetooth pair Zigbee Receiver Zigbee Sender
2345
8/6/2019 Interference Automation Jan28
24/31
PLR v.s. Distance
0.0%0.5%
1.0%
1.5%
2.0%
2.5%
3.0%
3.5%
4.0%
4.5%
5.0%
1 2 3 4 5
PLR
Position of Zigbee Sender
No Interference
Under Bluetooth
25
Why Bluetooth could degrade
8/6/2019 Interference Automation Jan28
25/31
Why Bluetooth could degradeZigbees Performance
26
8/6/2019 Interference Automation Jan28
26/31
Test parameter
Motes channel: 25 (2475 MHz)
Motes packet rate:
Sends a packet when receives a senddone
Disable CSMA
Bluetooths data rate: around 70 kB/s
28
8/6/2019 Interference Automation Jan28
27/31
Test Scenario
2929
Bluetooth Receiver
Bluetooth Sender
WispySpectrum Analyzer
Tmote Jammer
8/6/2019 Interference Automation Jan28
28/31
Adaptive Frequency Hopping
30
8/6/2019 Interference Automation Jan28
29/31
31
480s 230s190sG1: 10s
Bluetooth
802.15.4
BackgroundNoise
8/6/2019 Interference Automation Jan28
30/31
Cost v.s. Gain
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
Test1 Test2 Test3 Test4
Second
s
Cost (s)
Gain (s)
32
8/6/2019 Interference Automation Jan28
31/31
Questions?
33
Top Related