2nd International ICST Workshop on Wireless Networks: Communication, Cooperation and Competition

Research Article

Bluetooth or 802.15.4 Technologies to Optimise Lifetime of Wireless Sensor Networks: Numerical Comparison Under a Common Framework

Download511 downloads
  • @INPROCEEDINGS{10.4108/ICST.WIOPT2008.3217,
        author={Chiara Buratti and Ibrahim Korpeoglu and Ezhan Karasan and Roberto Verdone},
        title={Bluetooth or 802.15.4 Technologies to Optimise Lifetime of Wireless Sensor Networks: Numerical Comparison Under a Common Framework},
        proceedings={2nd International ICST Workshop on Wireless Networks: Communication, Cooperation and Competition},
        publisher={IEEE},
        proceedings_a={WNC3},
        year={2008},
        month={8},
        keywords={Actuators Application software Bluetooth Communications technology Computer networks Consumer electronics Measurement Performance evaluation Wireless communication Wireless sensor networks},
        doi={10.4108/ICST.WIOPT2008.3217}
    }
    
  • Chiara Buratti
    Ibrahim Korpeoglu
    Ezhan Karasan
    Roberto Verdone
    Year: 2008
    Bluetooth or 802.15.4 Technologies to Optimise Lifetime of Wireless Sensor Networks: Numerical Comparison Under a Common Framework
    WNC3
    IEEE
    DOI: 10.4108/ICST.WIOPT2008.3217
Chiara Buratti1,*, Ibrahim Korpeoglu2,*, Ezhan Karasan2,*, Roberto Verdone1,*
  • 1: CNIT, IEIIT-BO/CNR, DEIS, University of Bologna, Bologna, Italy.
  • 2: Depts. of CE and EE, Bilkent University, Ankara, Turkey.
*Contact email: chiara.buratti@cnit.it, korpe@cs.bilkent.edu.tr, ezhan@ee.bilkent.edu.tr, rverdone@deis.unibo.it

Abstract

This paper aims at comparing through simulations the network lifetime of a wireless sensor network using Bluetoothenabled or IEEE802.15.4 compliant devices. The evaluation is performed under a common reference framework, namely the EMORANS scenario for wireless sensor networks. Since the two enabling technologies rely on different MAC paradigms, suitable definition of the performance metrics is needed, in order to make the comparison meaningful. Thus, the paper has also a methodological objective. In particular, three different definitions of network lifetime are introduced, and a comparison of performance obtained by applying the different definitions is provided. Then, the comparison between the two standards is introduced: it is shown that there are no orders of magnitude of difference in network lifetime when the two technologies are used and the choice of the technology depends on the application requirements.