PicoRadio:
Ad-hoc Wireless Networking of Ubiquitous Low-Energy Sensor/Monitor Nodes
J. Rabaey, J. Ammer, J. L. da Silva Jr., D. Patel
University of California at Berkeley
{jan,mjammer,julio,dpatel}@noyce.eecs.berkeley.edu
Abstract
One of the most compelling challenges of the next decade
is the solution of the "last meter" problem, which extends
the network into the end-user data-collection and
monitoring devices. This paper discusses the challenges
and opportunities of a "PicoRadio Network" that supports
the assembly of an ad-hoc wireless network of meso-scale,
low-cost and low-energy sensor and monitor nodes.
1. Introduction
Technology advances have made it conceivable to
build and deploy dense wireless networks of
heterogeneous nodes collecting and disseminating wide
ranges of data. Applications of such sensor and monitoring
networks are ample: environmental control in office
buildings, robot control and guidance in automatic
manufacturing environments, warehouse inventory,
interacting toys, the smart home and interactive museums
are just a few that come immediately to mind.
Crucial to the success of such ubiquitous networks
(called "PicoRadio Networks" in the remainder of the text)
is the availability of small, lightweight, and low-cost
network elements, which we call “PicoNodes”. Nodes
have to be smaller than 1cm3, weigh less than 100 g, and
cost less than 1 $. Even more importantly, power
dissipation of the nodes should be ultra-low to avoid
frequent battery replacement. Dissipation levels below 500
µW are envisioned, as these would allow for the nodes to
be self-powered using energy extracted from the
environment (energy-scavenging). Reaching these
aggressive power dissipation levels requires that the
effective range of each PicoNode is limited to a couple of
meters at most. Extending the reachable data range
requires the formation of a scalable network infrastructure
that allows distant nodes to communicate with each other.
The deployment of such a network with many hundreds of
nodes is non-trivial unless a self-configuring ad-hoc
networking approach is adopted.
How to reduce the power/energy dissipation of the
PicoNode to these ultra-low levels is the focus of this
paper. The secret lies in a meticulous concern for energy
reduction throughout the system design process. The
largest opportunity is situated in the protocol stack, where
a tradeoff between communication and computation, as
well as elimination of overhead can lead to many orders of
magnitude in energy reduction. Other opportunities lay in
the adoption and introduction of novel self-optimizing
radio architectures. To accomplishing these goals, we need
both optimization methods and highly reconfigurable
implementation platforms.
This paper presents the optimization strategy for the
PicoRadio Network (Section 2), and the architecture
implementation strategy for a PicoNode (Section 3).
2. PicoRadio Network Optimization
The three main layers we concentrate on are the
physical, media access control (MAC), and network
layers. For two nodes to communicate, a physical link is
created between two radios. The physical layer handles the
communication across this physical link, which involves
modulating data onto the medium in a way that can be
demodulated by the intended receiver. Next, since many
radios coexist in the same RF environment where
messages can interfere with each other, access to the
medium needs to be coordinated. The MAC layer provides
this service. The network layer determines the path for a
packet to take, when radios that are not within p hysical
range of each other wish to communicate, through other
nodes that forward packets on their behalf. This
forwarding of packets is often referred to as multi-hop
networking.
2.1. Energy Efficiency in Multi-hop Networks
An important motivation to use mult i-hop networks is
energy-efficiency. Sending a bit of information through
free space directly from node A to node B incurs an
energy cost, β∗ dγ. Where d is the distance between node
A and node B, γ> 1 is the path -loss exponent (a factor that
depends on the RF environment, and is generally between
2 and 4 for indoor environments), and β is a
proportionality constant. Given this greater than linear
relationship between energy and distance, it is more
energy-efficient to send a bit using several short
intermediate hops than using one longer hop, as long as
the energy to compute the route is negligible. For instance,
assuming γ =4 and β=.2 fJ/m γ, one hop over 50m requires
1.25 nJ/bit whereas, 5 hops of 10m require only 5x2 pJ/bit.
The multi -hop approach in th is example reduces
transmission energy by a factor of 125.
In its simplest form, multi -hop network energy
analysis argues for an infinite number of hops, each over
the smallest possible distance. Obviously, the number of
intermediate hops is limited by how many nodes lie
between nodes A and B, but there are more factors to take
into account. In a more realistic analysis, we include not
just the energy sent over the airwaves, but also the energy
dissipated in the radio for receiving the bit and readying
the bit for retransmission. These costs describe the
efficiency of the physical layer. Our new model is:
hops _ total γ
Eb = α ( hops _ total ) + β ∑ di
i =1
Where α is the cost of receiving and readying a bit for
retransmission unrelated to the distance.
Under ideal conditions of evenly spaced nodes,
γ consumed is less than the cost of finding each particular
( dist _ total )
Eb = α ( hops _ total ) + β
γ− 1
( hops _ total )
Then, the optimal number of hops is,
 β(γ− 1) 
hops _ opt = ceiling dist _ total ∗ γ 
 α  The other method, reactive routing, discovers routes only
 
For γ
=2, the optimal number of hops is,
 β
hops _ opt = ceiling 
dist _ total ∗ 
 specific data packet (or data stream).
 α  We can model the network behavior with two factors,
which is graphed in Figure 1.
log(β/α)
Figure 1: Optimal number of hops as a function
of distance
Still, there are more factors to take into account. For
every bit of data, there are overhead bits, such as the
destination address, cyclic redundancy check (CRC), and
framing information. Therefore, there are ε>1 bits sent for
every actual data bit. Now, the cost Eb becomes,
γ 
 (dist _ total )
Eb = ε α (hops _ total ) + β 
 γ− 1 
 ( hops _ total ) 
Note that ε does not change the optimum number of
hops, but it increases the total energy per actual data bit.
2.2. Energy Tradeoffs in Network Protocols
Nodes cannot know a priori which is the (optimal)
route to other nodes because this path changes as nodes
move, enter or leave the network. Therefore, the network
protocol is needed for coordinating the discovery and
tracking of routes in the network. This discovery and
tracking requires communication between nodes, and
hence consumes energy.
There are two general ways to do this tracking and
discovery: proactive and reactive routing. In proactive
routing, the network layer periodical ly updates routes, and
hence always has an up -to-date picture of the optimal
routes. A proactive network finds the routes between many
nodes at once in an efficient manor. Thus, the energy
route separately. When a packet of real data needs to be
transmitted, the route is known, and the data is sent with
little extraneous network activity. In a sense, there is a
fixed amount of traffic generated by periodic updates, but
the network overhead for any specific packet is reduced.
when they are needed. Routes, in the reactive scheme, are
generally not maintained until they are used. With this
method, there is no fixed amount of traffic generated b y
periodic updates, but there is network overhead for each
πand ρ. πrepresents the proactive portion of the network,
and ρ the reactive portion. Now, the energy consumed per
node, En, is
En = π( Eb) + (1 + ρ )( data _ bits _ sent )( Eb)
It can be seen that when we wish to communicate
infrequently with a few number of nodes, there is no
advantage to maintainin g routes that will infrequently be
used, so we favor a high ρ/π ratio. However, if the data
rate is high and we communicate with a large number of
nodes proactive routing can be efficient and we favor a
low ρ/π ratio. Of course, hybrid methods can be used to
optimize the network for the specific application.
Techniques that reduce both π and ρ are obviously
desirable. There is ample opportunity for such in the dense
sensor networks that we target. For example, a large
number of networking updates can be av oided by realizing
that often we do not need the precise path to a specific
sensor node, but just a general direction. Information
about the location of the node can hence help to reduce the
overall routing establishment overhead.
2.3. Energy Tradeoffs at the MAC Layer
The Media-Access Control (MAC) layer affects the
energy efficiency in two ways: (1) a careful control of
access to the aether reduces the number of wasted
transmissions, corrupted by interference of neighboring
nodes in the network; (2) MAC-layer power-management
can minimize the standby -power of the network, i.e. the
power consumed by a radio when it is not transmitting. In
A radio consumes standby power while waiting for the
medium to be free to send or receive a packet, and also
when it turns on periodically to do network maintenance.
Standby power is typically much lower than transmit or
receive power, but nonetheless, is wasted power and must
be reduced to achieve our low energy goals. The MAC
layer can reduce the standby power by developing a tight
coordination between radios that allows them to be awake
precisely when they need to transmit or receive data.
Standby power, Ps, appears as an additive figure in
our node energy expression. Ps can to a limited extent be
decreased through clever circuit techniques.
En = π( Eb) + (1 + ρ )(data _ bits _ sent )( Eb) +
Ps (awake _ time )
One problem with current radio technology is that a
radio cannot know if or when another radio wants to talk
to it, except by continuously monitoring the traffic. In
order to reach our very low energy target, we will have to
develop MAC layers that allow the radios to be asleep for
most of the time. Such a radio has to wake up
periodically, see if there is any one who wants to talk to it,
and if not, go back to sleep. A mechanism that allows the
radio to be awoken precisely when there is data for it
could reduce the awake-time, and hence overall node
energy consumption. If this wake -up mechanism could be
made out of very low power components, or even passive
components, we could drastically reduce node power.
3. PicoNode Implementation
Implementing the network optimizations elaborated
previously, requires a platform that fulfills the low -power
requirements described in Section 1, yet has enough
flexibility to enable the dynamic reconfiguration and
adaptability of the network. We are conceiving an
architecture that attempts to satisfy these challenging
requirements.
The PicoNode architecture (Figure 2), aims to provide
both flexibility and low -energy. This architecture is
composed of the following four modules:
• an embedded processor for the protocol stack layers
that require more flexibility and lower speed, and its
associated memory sub-system,
• configurable processing modules for more speed -
intensive layers of the protocol
• a parameterized and configurable physical layer, and
• a flexible s ynthesizable interconnection scheme.
SW
Memory
Embedded
Subsystem
Processor
Interconnect Backplane
Physical Configurable
Layer Logic
Figure 2: PicoNode Architecture
This architecture is inspired by our previous efforts in
the area of reconfigurable computing [3], which
demonstrated that a dynamic matching between
application and architecture led to spectacular energy
savings for si gnal -processing applications. In this effort,
we hope to establish that a similar scenario holds for
protocol and network-oriented applications. The following
four-pronged approach is used to develop the target
architecture for PicoNode: functional profili ng, protocol
implementation, flexible interconnect implementation, and
physical layer implementation. In the rest of this section,
we define the goals of each task and present preliminary
results.
3.1. Functional Profiling
Functional profiling helps to partitio n the application
into the different blocks of the architecture, by extracting
regular and reoccurring operations in protocol processing.
We believe that the key to efficient implementation is to
be able to recognize these operations and to define an
archi tecture that matches the dominant properties of these
algorithms in terms of computational elements and
interconnections.
Profiling is a standard technique utilized by the
compiler community to tune a compiler for a specific
processor. In our case, it is used to tune the architecture,
both processor and dedicated hardware blocks, for the
targeted application.
3.2. Protocol Implementation
Efficient and flexible protocol implementation
requires understanding of the tradeoffs between the
microprocessor and alterna tive reconfigurable hardware
platforms.
 In contrast to [2], that provide a programmer's model
and software development environment for a
programmable platform, and [4] that provides a
configurable architecture for compute intensive
applications, the goal o f this step is to determine how to
best integrate reconfigurable hardware into the PicoNode
architecture to properly exploit energy efficiency and high
computational throughput without sacrificing flexibility,
possibly using results demonstrated in [1] for FPGAs.
The solution comprises a well -defined method to
partition the design, and a custom reconfigurable
architecture that is optimized for wireless protocol
processing.
3.3. Interconnect Implementation
The communication patterns between components in
the design are dependent upon the mapping of
functionality onto the architecture. If the functionality of
the design or the mapping to hardware is modified through
reconfiguration, the communication requirements between
components may change as well.
The interconnect network between components must
be flexible enough to support various configurations while
remaining highly energy efficient. Both statically and
dynamically reconfigurable interconnect networks are
considered to find a solution that is optimized for low
power and flexibility.
Analog to [5], that provides a flexible interconnection
scheme for data flow configurable architectures, the goal
of this step is to provide a flexible interconnect for our
PicoNode.
3.4. Physical Layer Implementation
In order to be able to satisfy variable demand from the
network, the PicoNode physical layer has to be
parameterized. Parameters include power control modes,
modulation scheme, and bit rate.
The goal of this step is to define the parameters and
ranges for those parameter that allow us to tailor the
physical layer on the fly to the time -changing demands of
the network. The physical layer should do the minimum
work required to meet the current network demands, but
retain the capability to operate at peak performance when
necessary. This will result in energy efficient operation
without sacrificing peak performance.
3.5. Preliminary Results
To quantify different implementations we mapped the
MAC layer of a wireless node into three different
platforms: ASIC, FPGA, ARM processor and compared
from the energy perspective. For the ASIC platform power
measurements have been done using Epic Tools, for the
ARM using a table with information on the consumption
of each instruction. All simulations have been run at
25MHz, 3V supply voltage, and using the same
technology.
Table 2 quantifies the dependency of the power
consumption from the platform. The same MAC Layer
function implemented in the ARM requires more than 400
times the power consumed by an ASIC implementation 1.
Table 1: Power consumption for different platforms
ASIC FPGA ARM
Power 0.26mW 2.1mW 114mW
Energy 10.2pJ/op 81.4pJ/op n*457pJ/op
4. Conclusions
This paper has identified and examined energy -
minimization opportunities in wireless ad -hoc sensor and
monitoring networks. It also presented a configurable
architecture that enables these opportunities to be
efficiently realized in silicon.
We can conclude from this paper that the only way to
implement an ultra -low power node is by optimizing all
layers of the protocol. It is our believe that this energy -
conscious system-design and implementation
methodology will lead to radio nodes that are one or two
orders of magnitude more efficient than existing solutions.
Acknowledgements
We acknowledge the contributions of the PicoRadio
Group of the Berkeley Wireless Research Center
(http://bwrc.eecs.berkeley.edu/Research/Pico_Radio). This
research is sponsored by DARPA, as part of the PAC/C
program, and by the MARCO GSRC research consortium.
References
[1] George, V., Zhang, H., Rabaey, J. The Design of a Low
Energy FPGA http://bwrc.eecs.berkeley.edu/Research/
Configurable_Architectures/papers/islped99.pdf
[2] Mescal, http://www.gigascale.org/mescal/
[3] Pleiades, http://bwrc.eecs.berkeley.edu/Research/
Configurable_Architectures/Default.htm
[4] RaPiD, http://www.cs.washington.edu/research/projects/lis/
www/rapid/index.html
[5] Benes, M. "Design and Implementation of
Communication and Switching Techniques for the
Pleiades Family of Processors." MS Thesis, U.C.
Berkeley, 1999.
1
n is 3 ~ 12 for this protocol and corresponds to the number of cycles per
instruction.