High sensitivity wake-up radio using spreading codes: design, evaluation, and applications

Abstract

Most of the published wake-up radios propose low energy design at the expense of reduced radio range, which means that they require an increased deployment density of sensor networks. In this article, we introduce a design of a high sensitivity 916.5 MHz wake-up radio using low data rate and forward error correction (FEC). It improves the sensitivity, up to -122 dBm at a data rate 370 bit/s. It achieves up to 13 dB of coding gain with symbol error rate (SER) 10 -2 , and up to 4 times the range of the data radio, rendering it more suitable to sensor networks. Our design can receive wake-up signal reliably from any IEEE 802.15.4 transmitter and achieves a low packet error rate (PER) 0.0159 at SNR 4 dB. Furthermore, our design encodes the node ID into a wake-up signal to avoid waking up the undesired nodes.

Analytic comparison of wake-up receivers for WSNs and benefits over the wake-on radio scheme

“…An example of tested values is presented in [25] (99% detection probability and a false wake-up rate of 10 −3 /s). Shih et al [18] report low packet error rate of 0.0159 at SNR 4 dB.…”

“…The lowest power consumption has the Marinkovic et al WURx (only 270 nW) [24]. The largest power consumption report Shih et al (1.1 mW) because of the high sensitivity [18].…”

“…It introduces only 20 µs delay. In [15], [18]- [20], WURxs have a dedicated HW included to decode the address. Gamm et al [21] embed …”

A Sub-A Ultrasonic Wake-Up Trigger with Addressing Capability for Wireless Sensor Nodes

“…Needless to say, the design of low-power separate devices is crucial for energy efficiency. Reducing the power consumption of these circuits is an active research area and several advancements have been achieved since the first proposed approaches [6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16]. Different types of solutions are usually compared in terms of power consumption, maximum reachable distance, operating frequency, latency, and sensitivity.…”

“…Different types of solutions are usually compared in terms of power consumption, maximum reachable distance, operating frequency, latency, and sensitivity. Another (prominent) feature is also represented by the possibility of selective wake-up by means of out-of-band addressing [6,8,11,14,16].…”