Content uploaded by Hend Fourati
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Hend Fourati on Dec 21, 2016
Content may be subject to copyright.
Content uploaded by Thierry Val
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Thierry Val on Sep 11, 2015
Content may be subject to copyright.
Performance evaluation of IEEE 802.15.6
CSMA/CA-based CANet WBAN
Hend Fourati*, Hanen Idoudi*, Thierry Val**, Adrien Van Den Bossche**, Leila Azzouz Saidane*
* National School of Computer Science
University of Manouba
Manouba, Tunisia
Email: {hend.fourati,hanen.idoudi,leila.saidane}@ensi.rnu.tn
** University of Toulouse 2
Toulouse, France
Email: val@irit.fr, bossche@irit.fr
Abstract—In the recent few years, Wireless Body Area net-
works (WBANs) showed what can be done remotely to greatly
improve healthcare systems and facilitate the life to elderly.
One of the recent ehealth projects is CANet which aims at
embedding a WBAN into a cane to monitor elderly/patients.
Our main goal in this paper is to evaluate the performances of
the emerging standard IEEE 802.15.6 when applied on different
sensors from CANet eHealth project.
At this end, we defined a small scenario extracted from CANet,
and we assigned IEEE 802.15.6 priorities to the selected cane
sensors according to their inherent characteristics. We considered
further the mandatory RAP period of IEEE 802.15.6 superframe
under the beacon period with superframes mode since it supports
both normal and urgent traffic.
Our results showed that the contention access behavior of this
considered model of simulation depends on several constraints
(including the nature of the studied application and the traffic
types and frequency). This would be necessarily taken into
account to get the most advantage of all features offered by
WBANs standard IEEE 802.15.6.
Keywords—Medium Access Control (MAC), wireless body area
networks (WBANs), E-health, CANet project, wireless sensor net-
works (WSN), IEEE 802.15.6.
I. INTRODUCTION
The demographic profile of the world is constantly sub-
mitted to fast changes, mainly due to the number of elderly
which keeps increasing while the number of young people is in
constant decrease. During the last decade, the pace of change
has accelerated, involving an increasingly urgent challenge for
society. Thus, aging and inherent pathologies require from
now on a high level of social, familial, technical and financial
resources. Knowing that, for example, more than 33% of
65-and-over aged persons fall every year [13] is not very
reassuring, since it is impossible to have a qualified personnel
alongside each one of them 24 hours a day and 7 days/7.
This risks to explode healthcare costs especially as a majority
of the elderly prefer to receive the medical care at home while
benefiting from quality conditions and from optimal safety.
That’s why, the need for a solution of easy and low-cost
use (custom), handled remotely, is felt and the domain of e-
health, has brought answers. E-health covers several activities
such as the telemedicine, electronic health records, medical
remote monitoring, cybermedicine (the use of the internet to
deliver medical services), etc.
E-Health systems are destined to provide several services to
the monitored persons and their main features cover essentially
two types: safety services (detection of gas, fire, etc.) and
healthcare services such as remote medical diagnosis and
detection of emergency situations [2].
The implementation of the provided services is often based on
two elements:
•A WSN : is defined as a network of tiny sensor
nodes, which are spatially distributed to communicate
information gathered from the monitored field through
wireless links. The data collected by the different
nodes is sent to a sink which is connected to other
networks, for example, the Internet (through a gate-
way) [2, 14];
•A gateway : which allows the collection of data and
its transmission through a network of larger bandwidth
(to the smartphone of the family doctor, for instance)
[2].
In this context, CANet [1], an innovative project launched
in 2011, aims at allowing an efficient monitoring of the
elderly by the mean of a WBAN [15, 19] (Wireless Body
Area Network), which can be defined as a short-range WSN
embedded into a cane. To carry out this project and better take
into consideration the different QoS requirements of this kind
of health monitoring applications, we need communication
protocols specially designed for ehealth systems using WBANs
[20].
In this paper, we propose to use IEEE 802.15.6 as a
communication protocol for a CANet scenario. We analyze
different IEEE 802.15.6 parameters that should be adjusted
according to the cane sensors characteristics and priorities. We
discuss the choice of the most adequate modes, frame structure
and priorities. Then, we simulate our scenario and study its
performances under Castalia simulator.
The remainder of this paper is organized as follows.
Section 2 gives an overview of the main specificities of CANet
project, then, the general characteristics of IEEE 802.15.6
MAC layer. In section 3, we describe in detail the considered
study case, which is part of CANet project. The exhibition
of the IEEE 802.15.6 performances evaluation once applied
to the studied case and the analysis of the obtained results of
simulation are developed at the section 4. We will finish by
the conclusion and perspectives in section 5.
II. RE LATE D WO RK
A. CANet project
CANet (Cane Network) project [1] aims at designing and
implementing a monitoring system of elderly integrated into
an equipment which is usable during the everyday life: their
walking cane. The smart cane would thus allow leading an
easier life (it will not be necessary any more to stay in a
hospital or a medical center to be watched all the time) while
avoiding possible risks to which is exposed the concerned
elderly person (falls, suffocation, fire, etc.). In order to grow
old serenely and healthy, a collection of embedded sensors
in/on the cane will ensure an active and optimized monitoring
of the elderly, according to the health state of the concerned
person (figure 1).
Fig. 1. The main sensors proposed in CANet project [1]
To better understand the characteristics of different sensors
and their requirements in terms of quality of service, data rate,
frequency, etc., we will present a general definition of some
selected sensors that are proposed within the CANet project:
•A starting up sensor : Allowing to start up (to
activate) the monitoring system, embarked on the
cane;
•A hand’s temperature sensor : Measuring periodically
the temperature of the user’s hand and making sure it
does not exceed a certain range of values;
•A battery charge sensor : integrated into the body of
the cane;
•Digital sensor AON (all or nothing) for detecting
the action of the cane on the ground : It reports on
the frequency of cane contact with the ground when
walking, to estimate the traveled distance, the rest
periods, etc.;
•The combination (microphone, loudspeaker) : A
couple of microphone / loudspeaker for the interactive
dialogue with the concerned person. It is intended as
an emergency call tool;
•A 3- axis accelerometer : Assisting in the location
and detection of falls;
•A 3- axis gyrometer : The 3-axis gyrometer, coupled
with a magnetometer, measures the angular speed
and gives interesting informations about the rotation
movements of the cane;
•An emergency call button ;
•A localization sensor : A sensor intended for the lo-
calization of the cane indoor/outdoor (via the wireless
network);
•Cardiac sensor : This sensor records and watches
the heart rhythm;
Health monitoring applications, such as CANet, need ser-
vice differentiation since data and traffic generated by different
sensors are heterogenous and should have different priorities
in the network. For this reason, the authors of [18] proposed a
novel architecture for service differentiation in CANet based
on IEEE 802.15.4. Authors based their proposals on the
characteristics of the here defined sensors and they further
defined 2 virtual sensors to take into account specific types
of high priority traffics :
•Alert state : An alert frame is sent in the case of
extreme urgency;
•Critical state : Any sensor can be in this state in case
of detection of abnormal, or even alarming values of
a given vital sign to be watched [1].
Service differentiation was not officially considered by the
major technologies used for WPANs (wireless personal area
networks) as IEEE 802.15.4 std [6] and BLE [17], until IEEE
802.15.6 was defined. Since this standard was specifically
designed to give a solution to service differentiation, we aim
in our work to study the feasibility of using the native priority
system of IEEE 802.15.6 within CANet project.
B. IEEE 802.15.6 standard
With the aim of supplying a personalized standard provid-
ing a great use flexibility of WBANs in the field of ehealth,
the latest version of IEEE 802.15.6 appeared in 2012. Network
topologies supported by IEEE 802.15.6 are one-hop and two-
hop star topologies. In the most common case (single hop),
an IEEE 802.15.6-based WBAN is composed, as illustrated
in figure 2, of one and only one coordinator (or hub) and a
number of connected nodes, which varies from 0 to 64 nodes.
The two-hop star topology is typically used to increase the
range of the network, if needed, and ensures thus a better
QoS.
Fig. 2. IEEE 802.15.6 one-hop star topology
This standard operates on the first two layers of the OSI
model: PHY and MAC. It proposes a unique MAC layer which
can be used for one of the three following PHY layers: Human
Body Communications (HBC), Narrowband (NB) PHY and
Ultra wideband (UWB) PHY. The differences between these
layers reside essentially in the defined data rates and the
considered frequency bands as shown in table I. Each PHY
layer is also characterised by the contention access mechanism,
according to the standard:
•For HBC PHY : the slotted aloha is used;
•For NB PHY : the CSMA/CA access mechanism is
adopted;
•For UWB : Either slotted aloha or CSMA can be used
[3];
To allow various network nodes to access efficiently to the
medium, three modes were defined by the standard: beacon
mode with superframes, non-beacon mode with superframes
and non-beacon mode without superframes. In each of these
access modes, a different superframe structure has been defined
to better serve the various requirements of each traffic type that
may exist within the targeted application. The choice of the
mode depends on the nature of sensors and their traffic.
When the IEEE 802.15.6 is used for a vital ehealth ap-
plication such as CANet, the time base definition and the
traffic differentiation through various periods of appropriate
properties for each type of traffic is paramount.
In such applications, different mixed frames (for emergency
or regular traffic, etc.) are sent frequently. In the non-beacon
mode without superframes, each node has its own time base,
independently from the other network nodes, which is not
suitable for medical traffics. The non-beacon mode with super-
frames does not allow beacons transmission. To inform about
the superframe boundaries, the hub transmits timed frames
(T-Poll frames). This contributes to threats of interference
relations between network nodes.
The beacon mode with beacon periods would be thus the
most adequate choice since it defines high-flexible superframe
periods, presented in the figure 3, and it provides mainly traffic
synchronization, which makes it more reliable for medical
applications. That’s why we’ll opt for this mode in our CANet
study case.
Fig. 3. IEEE 802.15.6 superframe structure in Beacon mode with superframes
The IEEE 802.15.6 superframe, in the beacon mode with
beacon periods, consists of nslots (such as 16n6255
medium access slots) which we allocate to the various su-
perframe parts. EAP phases (Emergency Access Phases) are
destined exclusively to high priority traffic and Random Access
phases (RAP) can be used for both urgent and regular traffics.
MAP (Managed Access phase) is proposed essentially for
request-based traffic and CAP (Contention Access phase) is
defined only for regular traffic. But why to define two EAP,
RAP and MAP periods in a same superframe ? In the case
of coexistence, in the same network, between heterogeneous
sensors for medical surveillance and others for purposes of
entertainment, fixing RAP1 for medical traffic and RAP2
for entertainment traffic with RAP1-duration >RAP2-duration,
allows the medical traffic to be more likely to access the
channel during RAP phases. It is also useful to precise that
only the RAP1 period is mandatory in this mode, all other
superframe periods can be of zero length. The table II above
shows the main characteristics of the differents parts of IEEE
802.15.6 superframe.
TABLE II. CLASSIFICATION OF IEEE 802.15.6 STD SUPERFRAME
PERIODS [3, 4,10]
Period Traffic type Access mode
MAP Regular traffic Scheduled access
Unscheduled and improvised access On-demand (Polling/Posting)
EAP Urgent high priority traffic only Contention
RAP Random traffic (urgent or classic) access
CAP Regular traffic only
To meet the emerging needs in the e-health field, optimiz-
ing the existing medium access algorithms is henceforward a
priority. For that purpose, an effective traffic management is
imperative. This requires among other things the development
of dynamic differentiation strategies during data collection (in
real time as in delayed mode) as intelligently and precisely
as possible. It’s in this context that the IEEE 802.15.6 TG
introduced the notion of priority as detailed in table III.
TABLE I. DATA RATES D EFIN ED B Y IEEE 802.15.6 (WHE RE R SV ME AN S RES ERVE D OR U NDE FIN ED ) [3 ]
PHY Frequency Data rate (kb/s) Data rate (kb/s) Data rate (kb/s) Data rate (kb/s) Data rate (kb/s) Data rate (kb/s) Data rate (kb/s) Data rate (kb/s)
layer band (MHz) for UP0 for UP1 for UP2 for UP3 for UP4 forUP5 for UP6 for UP7
HBC 5 to 50 164 328 656 1312.5 Rsv Rsv Rsv Rsv
NB 402 75.9 151.8 187.5 455.4 Rsv Rsv Rsv Rsv
to 2483.5 to 121.4 to 242.9 to 485.7 to 971.4 or Rsv
UWB 3100 202.5 789.7 1579 to 3159 6318 12 636 557 1114
to 10 600 to 487 to 975 or Rsv to 1950 or Rsv to 3900 or Rsv to 7800 or Rsv to 15 600 or Rsv or Rsv or Rsv
TABLE III. PRIORITY MAPPING PROPOSED BY IEEE 802.15.6 [3]
User priority Traffic designation Frame type
0 Background (BK) Data
1 Best effort (BE) Data
2 Excellent effort (EE) Data
3 Video (VI) Data
4 Voice (VO) Data
5 Medical data or network control Data or management
6 High-priority medical data or network control Data or management
7 Emergency or medical implant event report Data
The standard did not set clearly the quantitative details for
each traffic of a particular priority. Only delays were defined
for priorities 3 and 4. For priority 4 (which targets voice), by
way of example, the delay must be less than 10 ms [5].
Within the contention access periods such as EAP, RAP and
CAP, the respect for the priorities given by the IEEE 802.15.6
is guaranteed through the considered access mechanism. In
our case study, the assigned priorities to the sensors will
be managed thanks to the CSMA/CA access mechanism by
choosing the backoff value among the intervals [CWmin,
CWmax] (contention window) defined by the standard for each
priority class.
IEEE 802.15.6 general performance in e-health field has
been investigated in several works such as [21]. However,
this kind of studies concludes always that the results of this
evaluation vary according to the specific requirements of the
considered medical application. Thus, we focus in this work on
the specific case of CANet. In the next sections, we define and
study an IEEE 802.15.6-based case from the CANet project.
III. STU DY CA SE A ND A NALYSIS
To better examine the feasibility of using IEEE 802.15.6
for CANet, we focused on three sensors from those presented
in section II.A, having the most different characteristics.
Our objectives are:
•To define a small scenario for a cane as specified
by CANet project and apply IEEE 802.15.6 as a
communication protocol;
•To discuss and assign IEEE 802.15.6 priorities to
different used sensors;
•To analyze different IEEE 802.15.6 parameters to be
used in our scenario (superframe structure, data rates,
frequency band, etc.).
As illustrated in figure 4, the hub (node 0) is placed on a
necklace weared by the concerned person to prevent it from
loss while all the other nodes are integrated into the cane.
We consider the use of three sensors (nodes).
The battery charge sensor (node 1) indicates if the battery
of the system works well and if it is well charged.
This sensor can be considered as a part of the network control
mechanism because without load, the entire system becomes
non-functional. In particular the extremely urgent situations
can no longer be detected in this case, which can put the life
of the person in danger.
As a consequence, we assigned the priority 5 to the battery
charge sensor.
The 3- axis accelerometer (node 2) measures essentially
the movements of the cane along 3 axes (X, Y and Z).
There is no need for a high priority for this sensor since as
soon as there is detection of an emergency situation (such as
a risk of fall), this sensor passes to the maximal priority (User
Priority UP7).
For this reason, we assigned priority 2 to this sensor.
Pushing the sensitive area of the emergency call button
(node 3) allows to turn on immediately the microphone
and the loudspeakers and call a family member or a doctor
regardless of the transmission channel state at that moment.
Once it collected the data from each sensor, the hub sends the
received information through a broadband network in order
to transmit them to the family doctor or the person charged
of the patient e-health control.
Thus, we assigned the highest priority (User Priority 7) to
this sensor.
Fig. 4. The considered WBAN network scenario
The general description of the studied sensors in our
scenario is summarized in the table IV below and organized
according to the priority classes and the specificities of super-
frame periods introduced in the IEEE 802.15.6 standard.
TABLE IV. GENERAL CHARACTERISTICS OF THE STUDIED SENSORS
Sensor Priority Period
(IEEE 802.15.6) (IEEE 802.15.6 superframe)
Sensor of the 5 EAP, RAP,
load of battery MAP
A 3- axis 2 RAP,MAP,
accelerometer CAP
Emergency 6 EAP, RAP
call button
Since the RAP period can tolerate contention access of
regular and urgent traffics and all the other IEEE 802.15.6
superframe parts are optional, and considering that (because)
those kinds of traffic are the only needed ones in CANet
project, our IEEE 802.15.6 performance evaluation will be
based on the basic superframe structure shown in figure 5.
Fig. 5. The considered beacon period in our scenario
IV. SIMULATION RESULTS
To examine closer the yield of IEEE 802.15.6 MAC,
we conducted a study of its various eventual implementing
simulators. To our best knowledge, Castalia [11] is currently
the most adequate simulator since it provides already a basic
IEEE 802.15.6 MAC implementation named: BaselineMAC.
A. Simulation context
Most of recent articles studying the performances of IEEE
802.15.6 did not consider modifications brought to the standard
after the first version [12] particularly in term of MAC layer
parameters. We therefore brought the necessary code additions
and improvements for BaselineMAC according to the last
version of the standard [3] (Which is so far the only official
version). The general parameters of the performed simulation
are detailed in table V. The distribution of different sensors
details are then mentioned in table VI.
B. Simulation results
Taking into account the different simulation parameters,
we evaluated the CSMA/CA access mechanism according to
three metrics: Data packet breakdown, latency and energy
consumption. For an optimum accuracy of the obtained results,
we run at least three simulations for each scenario and we
analyzed the averaged results of each one.
1) MAC sublayer metric: Data Packet Breakdown: In this
study, we observed the efficiency of IEEE 802.15.6-MAC in
term of packet outcome breakdown for a chosen scenario
based on CANet project concept. Figure 6 shows different
data packet breakdown for each node of the WBN network
and for different data rates starting with 20 packets/sec/node
to 140 packets/sec/node. The vertical axis represents packets
transmission states in different colors.
Transmission failure due to channel unavailability presents
the lowest rate in all the graphs especially for node 3 (fig6-
c) which has the highest priority (6) and 0% of this failure
category.
Packet transmission failure due to buffer overflow was null
for low data rates and began to be significant just from 100
packets/sec/node for all the nodes.
However, the rate of success from the first try, inappropriate
to the nodes priorities, reminds us of the CSMA/CA draw-
backs. Nodes with high priorities are therefore not sufficiently
benefited by the values of CWmin and CWmax set by the IEEE
802.15.6 standard. These CSMA/CA weaknesses are accentu-
ated when it’s a matter of managing a fairly heterogeneous
traffic and considering important data rates.
2) Application metric: Latency: We also evaluated the
end-to-end delay of successfully transmitted packets, taking
into account the differentiation of service through the priority
system proposed by the IEEE standard. These latency results
are presented in figure 7. The horizontal axis represents latency
intervals in ms and the vertical one indicates success packages
percentage for different data rates (from 20 to 140 packets/sec).
Since in our application, we are manipulating medical data,
the data reception delay is extremely important: in case of
long delay, this could put the patient’s life in danger. the
latency histograms obtained from the simulation of our present
network is satisfactory since more than 80% of packets are
transmitted during the first 20ms for data rates up to 100 pack-
ets/sec. However, the performance in term of latency begins to
degrade when the data rates become high (such as 120 and 140
packets/sec). This degradation of latency performance is most
clearly visible for 140 packets/sec data rate. For this packets
rate, less than 60% of packages percentage are successfully
sent during the first 20ms, and almost 7% are sent in an interval
of [380 ms, 400ms] (which corresponds to the second increase
of the black curve in figure 7).
Fig. 7. Latency intervals for different packet rates
TABLE V. SIMULATION PARAMETERS
Parameter Value
General Parameters
Transmitter Power 0.037mW
Frequency 2400MHz
PHY layer NB
Duration of the simulation 51 sec
MAC Layer parameters
MAC protocol CSMA/CA
Data rate Up tp 971.4 kb/s
Transmission -10 dBm
Power
pTiFS(time to start TXing a frame after a RX of another one) 0.075 msec
MAC buffer 48 packets
Time slot duration 10ms
Number of time slots in a beacon period 32slots
RAP length 32slots
Fig. 6. Data packet outcome breakdown for different nodes and variable packet rates
3) Energy Consumption: Figure 8 shows the consumed
energy (in joules) for all the nodes of our scenario includ-
ing the hub. This considered metric depends mainly on the
sleep periods and activity periods fixed for each node. The
CSMA/CA method,known to be greedy in terms of resources,
affects also this result. However, the different sensor priorities
do not have a significant effect on energy consumption.
Fig. 8. Consumed energy for different nodes and variable packet rates
V. CONCLUSION AND PERSPECTIVES
IEEE 802.15.6 is an emergent standard specifically de-
signed for low power and high efficient e-health applications.
Through this work, we used the emergent standard intended
for body area networks to investigate its performances when
applied to a prototype cane of CANet project.
Thus, we essentially discussed the benefit of IEEE 802.15.6
priority system and how it can be adapted to differentiate
priorities of some sensors proposed for CANet. We analyzed
different IEEE 802.15.6 parameters choice which could be
more adequate to our scenario. We evaluate, at the end of
the study, the performances of our CANet scenario with IEEE
802.15.6 as a communication protocol.
In a future work, we aim at estimating the performances
of the studied network once the superframe structure changed
(such as introducing the use of EAP et CAP periods, testing
TABLE VI. PARA MET ER S OF TH E ST UDI ED S ENS OR S
Parameter Node 1: Node 2: Node 3:
Charge 3-axis Emergency
sensor accelerometer call button
Number of 1 1 1
sensing devices
per sensor
Power consumption 0.01455 [7] 0.02 0.0576 [9]
per device(mJoules) ,
Sensor type Battery Acceleration Emergency
Device 0 [7] 0.02 [8] 0
sensitivity (Volt) ,
Device 0.047nC [7] 0.004 [8] 0,001
resolution ,
Device 5V [7] 2g [8] 1b [9]
saturation
maxSamples 1 1 1
rate
Data rate (kbps) 971.4 485.7 971.4
according to
IEEE 802.15.6 UP [3]
the efficiency of slotted ALOHA access mechanism rather than
CSMA / CA, etc.).
Through this approach, we will be able of determining the
ideal structure of the superframe, the values of the parameters
and the choice of the mode and the appropriate access method
that ensures an optimal differentiation of the traffic in the
considered WBAN.
It would be also interesting to prototype and test the CANet
scenario on a real testbed such as Wino prototypes [16].
REFERENCES
[1] T. Val, E. Bougeois, A. Van Den Bossche, N. Cazenave, L. Redon,
A. Soveja and T. Villemur, “Projet CANet : un syst`
eme de suivi
de personnes `
a mobilit´
e r´
eduite grˆ
ace `
a leur canne de marche” ,
revue EsprIUT, Num´
ero sp´
ecial Recherche, Volume Hors-s´
erie, p. 10-
11, february 2013.
[2] O. Hamdi et all., eHealth: Survey on research projects, comparative
study of telemonitoring architectures and main issues, Journal of
Network and Computer Applications, Volume 46, Elsevier, 2014.
[3] IEEE Standard for Local and metropolitan area networks part 15.6:
Wireless Body Area Networks: IEEE Std 802.15.6-2012, 2012.
[4] A. Al-Mazroa and N. E. Rikli, Performance Evaluation of IEEE
802.15.6 MAC in WBANs - A case Study, International Conference on
Information Technology and Multimedia (ICIMU), Malaysia, 2014.
[5] IEEE Std 802.1D-2004, IEEE Standard for Local and Metropolitan Area
Networks-Media Access Control (MAC) Bridges, 2004.
[6] IEEE Standard for Local and metropolitan area networks part 15.4:
Low-Rate Wireless Personal Area Networks (LR-WPANs), 2011.
[7] Charge sensor 0361i, http://www.cma-science.nl/resources/en/
sensors bt/d0361i.pdf , [Accessed June 2015].
[8] 3-axis accelerometer ML29s, http://www.cma- science.nl/resources/ en/
sensors ml/ML29s.pdf , [Accessed June 2015].
[9] One-touch button sensor AT42QT1012, http://www.adafruit.com/
datasheets/ AT42QT1012.pdf, [Accessed June 2015].
[10] C. Tachtazis et all., Chapter: An Energy Analysis of IEEE 802.15.6
Scheduled Access Modes for Medical Applications, D. Simplot-Ryl, M.
Dias de Amorim, S. Giordano, A. Helmy, Ad Hoc Networks, Springer
Berlin Heidelberg, 2012.
[11] Castalia WSN simulator,
https://castalia.forge.nicta.com.au/index.php/ en/, [Accessed June
2015].
[12] 802.15.6 std draft, MAC and Security Baseline Proposal,IEEE 802.15
Documents, Document no. 196, rev.2, March 17 2010, [Accessed June
2015].
[13] J. Wang et all., An enhanced fall detection system for elderly person
monitoring using consumer home networks, IEEE Transactions on
Consumer Electronics, Volume 60, 2014.
[14] P. Rawat et all., Wireless sensor networks: a survey on recent develop-
ments and potential synergies, The Journal of Supercomputing, Volume
68, Springer, 2014.
[15] R. Cavallari et all., A Survey on Wireless Body Area Networks: Tech-
nologies and Design Challenges, IEEE Communications Surveys and
Tutorials, Volume 16, IEEE, 2014.
[16] A. van den Bossche and T. Val, WiNo : une plateforme d’´
emulation
et de prototypage rapide pour l’ing´
enierie des protocoles dans les
r´
eseaux de capteurs sans fil, Journ´
ees francophones Mobilit´
e et Ubiquit´
e
(UBIMOB), France, 2013.
[17] H. Strey et all., Bluetooth low energy technologies for applications in
health care: proximity and physiological signals monitors, the 10th
International Conference and Expo on Emerging Technologies for a
Smarter World (CEWIT), USA, 2013.
[18] S.Khssibi, Utilisations des r´
eseaux de capteurs de canne pour les
applications de surveillance de personnes, Ph.d thesis report, University
of Toulouse 2, 2015.
[19] S. Movassaghi et all., Wireless Body Area Networks: A Survey, IEEE
Communications Surveys and Tutorials, Volume 16, IEEE, 2014.
[20] G.K. Ragesh and K. Baskaran, A Survey on Futuristic Health Care
System: WBANs, Procedia Engineering, Volume 30, Elsevier, 2012.
[21] L. Yang and al., Performance Evaluation of IEEE 802.15. 6 MAC with
User Priorities for Medical Applications, In Ubiquitous Computing
Application and Wireless Sensor (pp. 23-30). Springer Netherlands,
2015.
