white paper‚Smart Building‘ trends – a comparison of
wireless standards for automation and control
Version 2, 12th April 2021
Prof. Dr. Michael Krödel

IGT - Institut für Gebäudetechnologie GmbH
Alte Landstrasse 25, 85521 Ottobrunn, Germany
www.igt-institut.de  info@igt-institut.de

Disclaimer: The information in this document was provided and created by Prof. Kroedel from
IGT and supported by the EnOcean Alliance. The EnOcean Alliance is not responsible for thecontent of this document.

‚Smart Building‘ trends – a comparison of wirelessstandards for automation and control
Contents
1

INTRODUCTION

32USE CASES IN MODERN BUILDINGS

5

2.1
Typical automation examples
2.1.1 Room automation
2.1.2 Facility automation

6
6
7

2.2

8

3

Additional value-added Smart Building features
WIRELESS STANDARD REQUIREMENTS

10

3.1

System requirements due to the necessary sensors

10

3.2

Criteria for determining suitability

12

4

OVERVIEW OF AVAILABLE WIRELESS STANDARDS

17

4.2
Overview of available wireless standards
4.2.1 5G cellular network
4.2.6 NB-IoT
4.2.9 WLAN
4.2.10 ZigBee / ZGP (ZigBee Green Power)
4.2.11 Z-Wave

18
19
25
28
29
30

5.1 Wireless standard characteristics

31

5.2 Overview of findings

43

6

CONCLUSIONS

44

7

SOURCES

45

Comparison Wireless Standards for Smart Buildings v2.0

Page 2 of 45

www.igt-institut.de‚Smart Building‘ trends – a comparison of wirelessstandards for automation and control
1

Introduction

Building automation is on the advance. Systems are becoming increasingly sophisticated, offering more
and more value-added service features thanks to IT-based systems which surpass what room-/buildingmanagement systems could offer until now. These systems are heavily reliant upon data from withinspaces and buildings, which can easily be gathered and transmitted by means of wireless technology.
The proliferation of building automation is supported by two trends. On the one hand, „Smart Home“
systems stimulate interest and generate demand for similar solutions in commercial spaces such as offices
and public buildings.
On the other hand, it has become widely accepted that buildings can be used more efficiently byintelligently interpreting usage data. Energy can be utilised more efficiently and investments in smart
technology can be amortized within the space of a few years [Becker 2007]. Existing space can also be
used far more efficiently, e.g. for flexible workspaces in open-plan offices, meeting rooms and sales
showrooms. However, excessive usage must be avoided in order not to irritate workforce and clientsalike. Last but not least, value-added services are playing an increasing role in making workplaces more
attractive and enhancing employee productivity.
All these factors contribute towards a major shift from conventional architecture to „Smart Buildings“.
However, one must differentiate between room-automation and facility automation on the one hand,and value-added services in „Smart Buildings“ on the other hand.
The typical room-automation and facility automation scenarios are intended to optimise lighting,shading and HVAC according to momentary requirements. They constitute a relatively simple but
essential step on the road to more „intelligent“ solutions. Here, programming is based upon relatively
simple criteria in order to simplify installation and maintenance. Conventional technologies offer little
support for more complex, adaptive/self-learning solutions. So-called bus systems rely upon a
combination of device parameters and sensor-to-actuator interaction. This simplifies implementation but
does not make for truly „smart“ buildings. More sophisticated scenarios require controllers (aka server or
DDC1) which must be programmed.
Although there is no fixed requirement to adopt a specific type of programming for building automation
applications, most players in this market appear to have an affinity for the IEC 61131 standard - originallydeveloped for programmed-memory control systems in the field of process automation, with a broad
range of programming variants offering free and creative options. However, complex requirements canquickly lead to confusing programming results incompatible with ease of maintenence. In the best ofcases, one selects a supplier who offers a functional programming library - but then becomes dependent
upon the supplier and has to take a gamble upon his willingness to maintain the library in the long term.
Illustration 1 shows a typical three-level building automation solution. It can be seen that part of the„intelligence“ is deferred from the Automation (controllers) and the Field (bus system) levels to theManagement level. This level typically supervises, optimises, controls and visualises the building1

Direct Digital Control
Comparison Wireless Standards for Smart Buildings v2.0

Page 3 of 45

www.igt-institut.de‚Smart Building‘ trends – a comparison of wirelessstandards for automation and control
management control system. It is not well suited to carrying out upcoming control functions. Therefore,
new Building Management Systems (BMS) are being rolled out: they will allow for the random
programming of „Smart Building“ systems using modern IT languages and tools, interfacing with other IT
systems such as room reservation systems or data banks, featuring visualisation for „normal“ users (andnot only facility managers) whilst offering location-based services such as in-building navigation. SuchBMS systems allow for the intelligent evaluation of sensor-generated data and feature AI (Artificial
Intelligence) tools. Moreover, the user can already decide whether to operate cloud-based or serverbased solutions.
The vast majority of the system requirements outlined in Chapter 3 can be better - or only - fulfilled by ITbased BMS solutions.

Building automation hierarchy
à BMS
Services(partly) deferred„intelligence“

Network

Controller(manufacturer A)

Controller(manufacturer B)

Devices

wirelesscomponents„Smart Devices“

wired components

1Prof. Dr. Michael Krödel

Illustration 1: Multi-level building automation system incl. deferred „intelligence“

The use of novel BMS systems allows for new value-added services. The evaluation of sensor data plays a
key role and will lead to more intense sensor data usage than is currently the case. A true „Smart
Building“ makes use of economically viable, integrated sensors. They can be connected by conventional
cables, or by wireless technology. This offers free sensor placement and simple installation/retrofitment.
As far as the fear of so-called „electrosmog“ goes, there is little to worry about – the sensors transmit verysmall data packages, and only as needed. Moreover, there is ample distance between persons anddevices such as switches, presence sensors, window contacts etc.. Therefore, wireless sensors emit far

Comparison Wireless Standards for Smart Buildings v2.0

Page 4 of 45

www.igt-institut.de‚Smart Building‘ trends – a comparison of wirelessstandards for automation and control
less „electrosmog“ than always-on devices such as mobile phones, chargers, Bluetooth headsets or WLAN
access points
Cable-connected devices will not be wholly supplanted. However, the diffusion of wireless devices will
increase dramatically. Especially where there is a need to place sensors in objects or surfaces that need tobe moved, e.g. in open-plan offices with mobile partitions. Therefore, wireless standards for the
integration of sensors in automation and control applications will find more and more opportunities in thefield of building automation.
This document aims to compare different wireless technologies within this context. Use Cases aredescribed in Chapter 2. Functional requirements for each wireless standard are described in Chapter 3.
Common wireless standards are described in Chapter 4, whilst Chapter 5 evaluates and compares thesuitability of each wireless standard for each type of „Smart Building“ application.

2

Use Cases in modern buildings

Building automation is the key to needs-driven, energy-efficient utilisation of modern buildings. Roomautomation and facility automation call for a differentiated approach, whereby the development of valueadded services is gaining speed. These services are based upon an intensive usage of sensor data – notonly for optimal resource and energy management, but also to improve workplace attractiveness andemployee productivity. Use Cases indicate the type of sensor best suited to a given application, and thesensor characteristics allow us to draw conclusions concerning the most suitable wireless standard for theapplication in question.
To compare wireless standards later on in this document, one must first define what needs to be
automated in order to define the best solution amongst the various wireless standards available. We shalltherefore list the requirements for room-automation and facility automation on the one hand, and therequirements for „Smart Buildings“ on the other. The following tables also indicate the type of sensor
required for each application. The type of actuator will not be contemplated here, since it is of lesser
relevance for the choice of wireless standard. Also, most actuators are connected/powered by cable.

Comparison Wireless Standards for Smart Buildings v2.0

Page 5 of 45

www.igt-institut.de‚Smart Building‘ trends – a comparison of wirelessstandards for automation and control
2.1

Typical automation examples

Here are some typical automation examples, as determined by the „Planning process for Smart Home &Smart Office“ [IGT 2015] survey and the DIN EN 15232 [EN15232 2017] standard for facility automation.
2.1.1

Room automation
Use Case

Room temperature can be individually regulated depending
upon occupancy and window/door status.
Room ventilation and cooling can be individually regulated,taking temperature, air quality (CO2 and/or VOC loads) andhumidity into account. Additionally, occupancy andwindow/door status may be taken into accountRoom lighting can be individually dimmed. Switches for single
lights or groups of lights. Additionally, occupancy and outdoor
light levels may be taken into account.
Sunblinds/shutters for balconies & terraces stay open as long as
the relative doors remain opened (lock-out protection).
Sunblinds/shutters are governed in function of room
temperature (thermal protection). Can be deactivated in caseof human presence.
Sunblinds/shutters & awnings can be retracted in windy or
stormy conditions.
Windows/doors can be monitored (burglary protection).
Intruder protection for external areas with illumination & alarmfunctions.
Switches for lighting/shading can be freely positioned, allowing
for easy repositioning of partitions and furniture. Handheld
transmitters can also be used.
Energy consumption of individual appliances, rather than thewhole electric circuit, can be monitored.

Devices required
Temperature sensors & controllers,
occupancy sensor, window/door
contacts, rotary handle sensors
Room temperature sensors, air
quality sensor, humidity sensor,
occupancy sensor, window/door
contacts, rotary handle sensors
Switches, light sensor,
occupancy sensor
Switches, rotary handle sensors(window/door contacts)
Temperature sensor, occupancy
sensor
Weather station (wind sensor)
Window/door contacts, externalmotion sensors
Switches, handheld transmitters
Electricity meter

Table 1: Use Cases - room automation

Comparison Wireless Standards for Smart Buildings v2.0

Page 6 of 45

www.igt-institut.de‚Smart Building‘ trends – a comparison of wirelessstandards for automation and control
2.1.2

Facility automation
Use Case
Heating and cooling for individual rooms can regulated
depending upon occupancy and window status.
The supply of warmth for heating systems or refrigeration forcooling systems can be regulated to match current andprojected system demands (including criteria for flow
temperatures and pump rotation speed regulation).
Multiple heat/cold-generating units can be governed according
to system performance requirements and loads.
Simultaneous operation of heating and cooling systems can be
avoided.
Ventilation can be regulated according to demand (taking air
quality/humidity in consideration).
Heat regeneration for ventilation systems can be configured to
avoid icing and overheating.
Fault alarms, operating hours and energy consumption can beprotocolled and evaluated.
In Summer, overheated buildings can be cooled economicallyand efficiently by ventilating with cool air at night.

Devices required
Temperature sensors & controllers,
occupancy sensor
Temperature sensors,pressure sensors- (no particular sensors necessary)- (no particular sensors necessary)
Air quality sensor,
humidity sensor
Pressure sensors,
temperature sensors
Various analogue-/binary-input
sensors,
electricity & water meters
Temperature sensors,
external temperature sensor(or weather station)

Table 2: Use Cases - facility automation

Comparison Wireless Standards for Smart Buildings v2.0

Page 7 of 45

www.igt-institut.de‚Smart Building‘ trends – a comparison of wirelessstandards for automation and control
2.2

Additional value-added Smart Building features

As already mentioned - systems are becoming increasingly sophisticated, offering more and more valueadded service features thanks to sensor data evaluation by IT-based systems which surpass what room/building-management systems could offer until now. This offers different types of benefits. On the one
hand, we have considerable energy savings through systems which repay initial investments in the spaceof just a few years. On the other hand, we have added value through more attractive workplaces as anincentive for recruiting and retaining employees. Together with higher employee productivity, which canbring financial rewards beyond the (more easily quantifiable) ones stemming from lower energy
consumption. The following Use Cases stem from a check list published by the Institut fürGebäudetechnologie [IGT 2019] and a dissertation by Dominik Hüttemann at the Hochschule Rosenheim[Hüttemann 2020]. These Use Cases are merely examples of what „Smart Buildings“ make possible. Many
more solutions are under development and entering the market - the ones shown here illustrate thebenefits available today for those who choose advanced, easily installed and technically mature solutions.
Use Case
The smartphone-based dynamic booking/release of conferenceroom facilities. Meetings finishing ahead of schedule can berecognized and taken into account for optimal facility
management.
Individual workplaces in open-plan offices can bebooked/released by smartphone. Unoccupied workplaces canbe recognized and reassigned.
Occupancy sensors can be used to analyze the use of meetingrooms , recognize resource usage patterns, protocol no-shows,manage workspace efficiently and organize catering services
The analysis of usage patterns enables the flexible allocation of
employee workspace. Unutilized areas can be set to energysaving mode, thereby cutting heating/cooling/electric power
costs
Building occupancy can be displayed graphically by employing„Heat Maps“ or „Moving Trails“ illustrating how many persons
are occupying which areas. Such insight provides the perfectbasis for zone planning purposes (e.g. room size, position of
meeting rooms etc.).

Devices required
Occupancy sensor(or activity monitor)

Table/chair occupancy sensors
Occupancy sensor or activity
monitor, floor pressure sensors
Occupancy sensor or activity
monitor, floor pressure sensors,
table/chair occupancy sensors

Occupancy sensor or activity
monitor, floor pressure sensors

Table 3: additional value-added Smart Building features (part 1)

Comparison Wireless Standards for Smart Buildings v2.0

Page 8 of 45

www.igt-institut.de‚Smart Building‘ trends – a comparison of wirelessstandards for automation and control
Use Case
Light colour can be influenced in order to enhance employee
biorhythms (Human Centric Lighting - HCL). Manual override
influencing the colour and intensity of light can be governed bysmartphone applications or dedicated switches.
Employees and visitors can be easily guided through thebuilding complex, making orienteering simpler in unfamiliar
facilities e.g. when looking for a specific meeting room. Project
teams can be brought together, and buildings can be selectively
occupied in order to reduce energy needs for unused areas.
Users can express individual preferences, e.g. vicinity tolifts/stairs, specific colleagues, meeting areas or barrier-freeaccess.
Canteen usage (i.e. foreseeable waiting times) can bemonitored and visualised from the workplace.
The frequency of washroom usage can be monitored andtranslated into appropriate cleaning schedules.
Usage of lifts, coffee machines etc. can be monitored andtranslated into adequate maintenance schedules.
Sensors within the building automation network monitor
pumps, cleaning machines, HVAC systems, lifts etc. and report
any malfunction in real time for better fault-finding and more
efficient pre-emptive measures.
The position of moveable objects can be monitored. In case ofremoval, alarm can be given and theft can be prevented.
Precise information for rescue teams concerning thewhereabouts of people inside the building, enabling fast andefficient evacuation (e.g. in case of fire).

Devices required
Switches, light sensor,
occupancy sensor(no particular sensors necessary;use of smartphones to acquiresignals from wireless beacons ormeasure WLAN signal strength)

Occupancy sensor or activity
monitor, floor pressure sensors
Door contacts; alternatively,
sensors for handtowel/soap
dispensers, water taps
Ideally, connection with appliancedata via interface - alternatively,
various analogue-/binary-input
sensors
Ideally, connection with appliancedata via interface - alternatively,
various analogue-/binary-input
sensors
Vibration detection sensor(transmits data when moved);
alternatively, tracking signaltransmitted at regular intervals
enables indoor tracing.
Occupancy sensor or activity
monitor, floor pressure sensors

Table 4: additional value-added Smart Building features (part 2)

Comparison Wireless Standards for Smart Buildings v2.0

Page 9 of 45

www.igt-institut.de‚Smart Building‘ trends – a comparison of wirelessstandards for automation and control
3

Wireless standard requirements

The demands that wireless standards have to meet stem from the requirements of „Smart Building“ Use
Cases. Further requirements arise from the need to set up, run and maintain the necessary infrastructure.
This chapter analyzes these requirements as benchmarks for the suitability of the various wirelessstandards, as explored in later chapters.

3.1

System requirements due to the necessary sensors

The previous chapter illustrates which Use Cases require what type of sensor, as shown in Table 5. Taking
Tables 1 to 4 into consideration, we can see that most sensors have to fulfil a variety of roles. Therefore,
good market availability and ease of system integration are of great importance for a broad range ofapplications.
Therefore, wireless standards must ideally support a broad range of freely available sensors.
Table 5 also illustrates data volume, data transmission frequency rates and time criticality. This
information plays an important role when determining the suitability of individual wireless standards.
The split into Low/Middle/High ratings is based upon the following considerations:
Data volume
How large ist the quantity of data that needs to be transmitted?
 Low
1 – 10 Bytes
 Middle
11 – 100 Bytes
 High101 – 1000 Bytes
 Very high> 1000 Bytes
Data transmission frequency rates
On average, realistically, how often does data have to be transmitted?
 Low
less than 1x per quarter of an hour Middle
more than 1x per quarter of an hour Highmore than 1x per minute Very highmore than 10x per minuteComparison Wireless Standards for Smart Buildings v2.0

Page 10 of 45

www.igt-institut.de‚Smart Building‘ trends – a comparison of wirelessstandards for automation and control
Time criticality
How quickly must data be transmitted? Higher transmission rates demand shorter wireless network
latency times.
 Lowfrom 1 to 60 minutes
 Middlefrom 1 to 60 seconds
 Highfaster than 1 second Very highfaster than 0.1 second

SensorActivity monitor
External motion sensor
External temperature sensor
Floor pressure sensor
Various analogue-/binaryinput sensors
Rotary handle sensor
Pressure sensor
Vibration detection sensor
Light sensor
Air humidity sensor
Air quality sensor
Occupancy sensor
Room temperature sensor/
roomtemperature controller
Sensor for handtowel/soap
dispenser, water tap
Electricity & water meters
Switches, handheld
transmitters
Temperature sensor
Door/window contacts
Weather station (wind,temperature, humidity)

Data volume
Low
Low
Low
Low

Low
Low
Low
Low
Low
Low
Low

Frequency rate
MiddleMiddleLow
High
Depending upon
sensor values
High
MiddleMiddleMiddleMiddleMiddleMiddleTime criticality
MiddleHigh
MittelHigh
Depending upon
sensor values
High
MiddleMiddleHigh
MiddleMiddleHigh

Low

MiddleMiddleLow

MiddleLow

Middle

Low

Low

High

Low
Low

MiddleHigh

LowHigh (bordering on„very high“)
MiddleHigh

MiddleMiddleMiddleLow

Table 5: sensor overview

Comparison Wireless Standards for Smart Buildings v2.0

Page 11 of 45

www.igt-institut.de‚Smart Building‘ trends – a comparison of wirelessstandards for automation and control
3.2

Criteria for determining suitability

This section explores the individual criterion which renders a given wireless standard more - or less suited to applications in a „Smart Building“ environment, as outlined in Chapter 2.
Suitability of the frequency band (KO criterion)
The previous chapters illustrate what is ideally required of a wireless standard according to the type of
sensor in use (see Table 5).
The Use Cases listed in Chapter 2 outline which type of sensor is required in order to implement roomautomation and facility automation solutions as well as additional value-added Smart Building features.
Die parameters illustrated in Chapter 3.1, on the other hand, define the system requirements due to thenecessary sensors. All in all, we can therefore define the requirements for data transfer.
It has been shown that connecting sensors does not require high data transmission frequency rates. The
amount of data (telegram packet size) to be sent at any one time is usually quite small, and even„intensive data transmission“ is usually limited to max. 10 data packets/minute. Meaning that wirelessprotocols should ideally use small data packets in order to minimise redundant (and inefficient)transmission capacity.
Data transmission rates are mostly unproblematic. Latency times under 1 second are usually only
required when immediate response is needed (e.g. when a switch is operated, when entering a room orwhen a door or window is opened), and even then 0.1 second is mostly sufficient.
As far as range goes, in many instances sensor-generated data must initially reach a controller or gateway
since the signal must first be processed at automation or management (BMS) level - see Illustration 1.
Sensors are typically located throughout a building, and usually require an appropriate infrastructure (e.g.
cable-connected antennas for receiving signals from wireless „satellite“ sensors in the vicinity). The
greater the range of the wireless devices employed, the larger the „Catchment Area“ becomes - requiringa smaller number of antennas and a leaner, cheaper infrastructure.
Transmitter power is another important consideration. Mains power requires cables, and cables are alimiting factor for sensor placement. Most sensors are therefore battery-powered or self-powered. Thismeans that energy must be used as efficiently as possible, with no technical „frills“ - hence: small data
packets (approx. 10 bytes, as already outlined), latency times between 0.1 and 1 second and adequate
range (typically between 10 m and 100 m).

Comparison Wireless Standards for Smart Buildings v2.0

Page 12 of 45

www.igt-institut.de‚Smart Building‘ trends – a comparison of wirelessstandards for automation and control
The suitability comparison of wireless standards in Chapter 5 takes the following classification into
account:
 Low: (0 points): high data transmission rates (e.g. in Mbit/Mbits-range); insufficient/excessive range(e.g. < 10 m or > 100 m) resulting in excessive power consumption; alternatively latency times > 1 s;
 Middle: (1 point): low data rates and data packets > 100 bytes and latency > 1 s (preferably 0.1 s);range 10 m - 100 m; high energy consumption.
 High: (2 points): low data rates and data packets > 100 Bytes and latency > 1 s (preferably 0.1 s);range 10 m - 100 m.

Important„Suitability of the frequency band“ is a KO-criterion.
This means that the overall suitability ranking for a given wireless standard will not exceed the value
attained in the “Suitability of the frequency band“ rating. Inadequate basic data transmission
characteristics of a given frequency band lead to its negative overall rating.

Manufacturer dependence
In the best interests of the user, wireless standards should operate across as many suppliers as possible.
Wireless technology should be standardised in order to allow for maximal interoperability between
devices produced by different suppliers.
The suitability comparison of wireless standards in Chapter 5 takes the following classification into
account:
 Low (2 points): standardised wireless protocol; all components for sensor manufacturing are available
from numerous suppliers. Sensor devices are available from numerous suppliers, interoperability
guaranteed.
 Middle (1 point): standardised wireless protocol; some components for sensor manufacturing are only
available from one supplier. Sensor devices are available from numerous suppliers, interoperability
guaranteed. Alternative: dependency upon fee-based provider services.
 High (0 points): non-standardised wireless protocol; components/sensors only available from one
supplier; no/restricted interoperability.

Comparison Wireless Standards for Smart Buildings v2.0

Page 13 of 45

www.igt-institut.de‚Smart Building‘ trends – a comparison of wirelessstandards for automation and control
Infrastructure
In Smart Buildings, devices and actuators are usually governed by a central system e.g. a controller or an
IP-based management system via gateway access (see illustration 1). Limited wireless sensor range calls
for differing infrastructure demands.
The suitability comparison of wireless standards in Chapter 5 takes the following classification into
account:
 Infrastructure and/or Mesh (1 point each): buildings must possess their own infrastructure e.g. cableconnected antennas and gateways which convert wireless signal packets into data for cabletransmission to management systems. Alternatively, the wireless protocol allows for meshedcommunication between devices - i.e. forwarding of data telegrams via intermediate nodes(intermediate components, with higher energy consumption necessitating mains power connection).
 No own infrastructure (2 points): longer-range signal transmission eliminates the need for own
infrastructure. Particularly advantageous with a low sensor network density, where setting up an own
infrastructure would be relatively costly.
Integrability
Smart Buildings require that sensors be integrated into higher-level systems (controllers, DDC etc.) or
connected via gateway. Including data transfer to IP-based protocols, if the sensors are not IP-compatible.
The suitability comparison of wireless standards in Chapter 5 takes the following classification into
account:
 Low (0 points): very few or no interfaces/gateways available for products from the main controller
suppliers, no (or hardly any) gateways.
 Middle (1 point): very few or no interfaces/gateways available for products from the main controller
supplier; no (or hardly any) gateways. Few coupling options available. Alternatively, IP-based„alternate routing“ required (with increased latency times).
 High (2 points): multiple controller suppliers offer broad protocol support, good gateway availability.
Proven reference project information.

Comparison Wireless Standards for Smart Buildings v2.0

Page 14 of 45

www.igt-institut.de‚Smart Building‘ trends – a comparison of wirelessstandards for automation and control
Broad availability of the necessary hardware components
Table 5 shows the many different types of sensors required by typical Use Cases in „Smart Buildings“.
Here, we take commercial availability into account (with type number/data sheet, as well as manufacturer
warranty and repair issues).
The suitability comparison of wireless standards in Chapter 5 takes the following classification into
account:
 Low (0 points): sensors for Smart Building applications are only commercially available as rudimentarycomponents.
 Middle (1 point): the majority of sensors for Smart Building applications are commercially available
 High (2 points): all - or nearly all - sensors for Smart Building applications are readily available.
Measuring and testing
In order to guarantee trouble-free running of automation systems, wireless data analysis must be
possible. Measuring and testing equipment, as well as user documentation, is required.
The suitability comparison of wireless standards in Chapter 5 takes the following classification into
account:
 Low (0 points): no adequate measurement or testing possible (no equipment/documentation
available).
 Middle (1 point): measurement/testing possible. Equipment hard to obtain, expensive or complicatedto use.
 High (2 points): easy-to-use measuring and testing equipment/documentation & tutorials readily
available.
Power supply
The main advantage of wireless technology is the free positioning of devices. Mains power connection isan obvious hindrance. A low sensor density allows for the use of battery-powered devices, assuming a
multiannual battery life in order to minimize maintenance. Self-powered (e.g. photovoltaic) devices offer
clear benefits. Low energy consumption is important, for each type of device.
The suitability comparison of wireless standards in Chapter 5 takes the following classification into
account:
 External power supply (0 points)
 Battery-powered (1 point) Self-powered (2 points)

Comparison Wireless Standards for Smart Buildings v2.0

Page 15 of 45

www.igt-institut.de‚Smart Building‘ trends – a comparison of wirelessstandards for automation and control
Data encryption
Data encryption and security aspects are becoming ever more important and influence the quality
standards of data transmission. This is especially true of wirelessly-governed actuators. Integrity of sensor
data transmission is less critical. However, data encryption should be contemplated in all cases.
The suitability comparison of wireless standards in Chapter 5 takes the following classification into
account:
 Low (0 points): no data encryption possible
 Middle (1 point): support for mid-level data transfer security
 High (2 points): support for high-level data transfer security

Comparison Wireless Standards for Smart Buildings v2.0

Page 16 of 45

www.igt-institut.de‚Smart Building‘ trends – a comparison of wirelessstandards for automation and control
4

Overview of available wireless standards

In this Chapter we explore the various wireless protocols available at present and foreseeable future times.
Each protocol is briefly described in profile. To begin with, let’s take a look at the relevant frequency
bands.
4.1

Frequency bands

High-frequency data transmission takes place within set frequency bands.
Smart Building sensors operate on UHF (Ultra-High Frequency ; 0.3 GHz – 3 GHz) and SHF (Super-High
Frequency; 3 GHz – 30 GHz) bands. The following tables show the relative European sub-frequency bands- US and Asian markets use different frequencies.
Frequency
433 MHz, 868 MHz

2.4 GHz

0.7 GHz – 2.1 GHz;
2.6 GHz – 3.6 GHz

Designation
SRD(Short Range
Devices)
WLAN,
Bluetooth,Thread,ZigBeeCellularnetworks(2G, 3G, 4G)

Comments
Licence-free; time-limited transmission (e.g. 868.3 MHz e.g. 1%),
max. transmission power for 863 MHz - 869 MHz: 25 mW

Licence-free; max. transmission power 100 mW
Various frequency bands for GSM (2G), UMTS (3G) and LTE (4G).
Usage requires licence, with provider fees. Max. transmission
power varies between 2 W (2G) and 0.2 W (4G).

Table 6: UHF frequency bands and selected sub-frequencies

Frequency

Designation

5.1 – 5.7 GHz

WLAN

ab 3.4 GHz

Cellularnetwork (5G)

Comments
Licence-free;max. transmission power 1000 mW.
5G cellular technology uses various frequencies. First applicationsin the so-called C-Band (3.4 GHz – 3.7 GHz) range. Higher
frequencies foreseen for later applications. Usage requires
licence, with provider fees.

Table 7: SHF frequency bands and selected sub-frequencies

Comparison Wireless Standards for Smart Buildings v2.0

Page 17 of 45

www.igt-institut.de‚Smart Building‘ trends – a comparison of wirelessstandards for automation and control
4.2

Overview of available wireless standards

The wireless protocols outlined here are the ones best suited to connecting sensors and applications in
the field of building automation and the IoT (Internet of Things).
The relative descriptions follow this structure General describtion (aim/suitability)
 Suitability of the frequency band(data volume, latency times, packet size, range, transmitting power/energy consumption)
 Manufacturer dependence; standardization
 Infrastructure; licences; Mesh; ad hoc
 Integrability Commercial availability of devices
 Measuring and testing Power supply Encryption

Comparison Wireless Standards for Smart Buildings v2.0

Page 18 of 45

www.igt-institut.de‚Smart Building‘ trends – a comparison of wirelessstandards for automation and control
4.2.1

5G cellular network

The 5G (5th generation) cellular network standard was developed in order to improve upon LTE (4G)
network coverage and performance. It offers potential when sensors cannot be easily connected to an
own network infrastructure, or where doing so would involve disproportionate cost due to low sensor
density.
Data transfer rates of more than 1 Gbit/s are to be expected, with latency times in the range of a few
milliseconds. Range depends upon the frequency used and the level of infrastructure in place, with atypical range of a few hundred metres.
The protocol is standardized, with no user device manufacturer dependence. Interoperability between
devices from different suppliers is guaranteed. However, the use of provider services is subject to fees.
Direct data transfer between devices is not foreseen - connection only via provider infrastructure.
The integration of user devices with building automation controllers (DDC systems) only possible via theconnection of DDC systems with the provider platform.
5G-compatible building automation devices e.g. switches, occupancy sensors, door/window contacts etc.
- see Table 5 - are not yet on the market (and future availability remains to be seen).
Measuring and testing equipment for 5G technology is basically available but expensive and requires
skilful operation/training. It is unlikely that the average system integration technician would possess - orbe able to operate - such equipment.
We can assume that sensors will be either mains-powered or battery-powered (rechargeable orreplaceable). More accurate predictions are not possible, as the necessary hardware is mostly underdevelopment.
High-level data encryption will be supported.

Comparison Wireless Standards for Smart Buildings v2.0

Page 19 of 45

www.igt-institut.de‚Smart Building‘ trends – a comparison of wirelessstandards for automation and control
4.2.2

Bluetooth / BLE (Bluetooth Low Energy)

Bluetooth and BLE were developed with short-range (Personal Area Networks = PAN) communication, at
middle data transmission rates, in mind. Bluetooth is especially popular for audio communication
between smartphones/tablets and peripheral devices (speakers, headphones, hands-free units) and isuniversally supported. The energy-optimized Bluetooth Low Power (BLE) version was developed with thetransfer of small data packets between sensors and smartphones - especially in the field of sport - inmind. BLE could also be imployed in a Smart Building context.
BLE supports data rates up to 2 Mbit/s with very small latency times (below 100 ms). Data packet size
varies between 10 Bytes and 255 Bytes. Max. outdoor line-of-sight range is approx. 50 m; indoor range istypically 10 m - 15 m. Transmitting power is limited to 100 mW, whereby some sub-standards allow up to
10 mW.
The Bluetooth Protocol is published and curated by the Bluetooth Special Interest Group (SIG) as ahierarchical set of standards. Some applications - such as audio data transfer - have achieved totalinteroperability across users and applications. However, this is not yet the case for building automation
applications.
Bluetooth devices can communicate directly amongst themselves, and with an overriding infrastructure.
Mesh network structures are also supported (Bluetooth Mesh), where information is relayed by a number
of Bluetooth devices (provided they are no more than 10 m apart and can support an increased energy
consumption).
The integration of Bluetooth devices in controllers for building automation systems (DDC systems) is
possible via Bluetooth interfaces provided by some manufacturers; alternatively, integration via Bluetooth
IP gateways is possible (with an appreciable increase in latency time).
More and more Bluetooth sensors for building automation are gradually coming to market - however, it
will be some time before a full range of devices as outlined in Table 5 becomes available.
Measuring and testing equipment, plus the relative user documentation, is readily available at reasonable
cost.
Currently available Bluetooth sensors are either mains or battery-powered. Self-powered devices areunder development.
Various encryption solutions are available, offering high-level data security.

Comparison Wireless Standards for Smart Buildings v2.0

Page 20 of 45

www.igt-institut.de‚Smart Building‘ trends – a comparison of wirelessstandards for automation and control
4.2.3 EnOcean
The EnOcean wireless protocol was explicitly designed with self-powered devices („Energy Harvesting“) inmind, with special focus on building automation.
In Europe, EnOcean operates on 868,3 MHz and therefore within the SRD frequency range - suited totransmitting short data packets (see Chapter 4.1). Data can be transmitted at a rate of 125 kbit/s. Withextremely short latency times which, in practice, cannot be sensed even when using time-critical devices
such as switches. Data packet sizes can vary between 7 Bytes – 16 Bytes. Max. indoor range is in theregion of 30 m. In keeping with the SRD standard, transmitting power is limited to 25 mW.
The EnOcean protocol is internationally recognized as ISO/IEC standard, and a high degree ofinteroperability is guaranteed across devices from a broad range of suppliers using the interoperable
profiles created by the EnOcean Alliance - an open, non-profit organization with 400+ companies
primarily operating in the field of building automation.
EnOcean devices can communicate directly amongst themselves, and with an overriding infrastructure.
The integration of EnOcean devices in building automation (DDC system) controllers is facilitated by theprovision of EnOcean interfaces by many manufacturers; alternatively, other gateway solutions (e.g.
EnOcean-IP, EnOcean-KNX, EnOcean-DALI etc.) are available.
A broad range of sensors for building automation applications is readily available from multiple suppliers.
Measuring and testing equipment, plus the relative user documentation, is readily available at reasonablecost.
The vast majority of currently available EnOcean sensors are self-powered (photovoltaic, energy
converter etc.)
Various encryption solutions are available, offering high-level data security.

Comparison Wireless Standards for Smart Buildings v2.0

Page 21 of 45

www.igt-institut.de‚Smart Building‘ trends – a comparison of wirelessstandards for automation and control
4.2.4 KNX RF
The KNX RF (KNX Radio Frequency) wireless protocol is published and curated by the KNX Association asaddition to the classic cable-based KNX protocol, with special focus on building automation.
In Europe, KNX RF operates on 868,3 MHz and therefore within the SRD frequency range - suited totransmitting short data packets (see Chapter 4.1). Data can be transmitted at a rate of 16 kbit/s. Withextremely short latency times which, in practice, cannot be sensed even when using time-critical devices
such as switches. Data packet sizes can vary between 8 Bytes – 23 Bytes. Max. indoor range is in theregion of 30 m. In keeping with the SRD standard, transmitting power is limited to 25 mW
The KNX RF protocol is internationally recognized as ISO/IEC standard, and a high degree ofinteroperability is guaranteed across devices from a broad range of suppliers. Suppliers must be membersof the KNX Association, and their products must be certified by the Association prior to market launch.
KNX-RF devices can communicate directly amongst themselves, and with an overriding infrastructure.
The integration of KNX RF devices in building automation (DDC system) controllers is enabled by theconversion from KNX RF to KNX TP (Twisted Pair, cable-bound) protocol in intermediate nodes. Limited
range calls for the multiple use of such nodes in larger buildings, connected to one or more KNX controller(or controllers with KNX interface, or KNX gateways) by KNX TP bus cables .
Sensors for building automation applications are available from a number of manufacturers.
Analysis of the KNX RF protocol takes place via the standardized KNX installation software - provided thatthe necessary infrastructure is in place.
Measuring and testing equipment for KNX RF is not yet available.
Most KNX RF sensors are battery-powered.
KNX RF supports data encryption, provided that the devices used also support encryption and that theappropriate steps are taken during installation.

Comparison Wireless Standards for Smart Buildings v2.0

Page 22 of 45

www.igt-institut.de‚Smart Building‘ trends – a comparison of wirelessstandards for automation and control
4.2.5

LoRa

LoRa technology (Long Range) was developed to connect low-energy devices, usually sensors, over longer
distances. They use the so-called LoRaWAN (Long Range Wide Area Network) protocol. LoRa is aimed
mainly at the IoT (Internet of Things), including the field of building automation. Most applications feature
a low sensor density and building-to-building outdoor communication in peripheral urban and rural areas(LoRa Alliance mission statement: „for large public networks“). LoRa offers different types of modulation
for transmitting information – in detail, LoRa can differentiate between several spreading factors (SF).
These find themselves between SF7 and SF12 and directly impact range, data package size, energy
consumption and latency times. Long-range applications are taken care of by higher spreading factors,(e.g. SF12). In this case, latency times can vary from several seconds to a few minutes – and are therefore
tendentially unsuitable for the applications outlined in Chapter 2. However, LoRa finds growing use inbuilding automation applications. In this case, a smaller spreading factor (e.g. SF7) is employed in order tofulfil the requirements of such applications.
In Europe, LoRaWAN operates on 868,3 MHz and therefore within the SRD frequency range - suited totransmitting short data packets (see Chapter 4.1). The data transmission rate at SF7 reaches approx. 5kbit/s. Data packet size amounts to approx. 235 Byte. Latency times are below 400 ms (Pötsch 2019).
Maximum range is estimated to be in the order of a few hundred meters. Data can be transmitted at rates
between 0.3 kbit/s and 50 kbit/s. Data packet size can reach 64 Bytes. Latency times are not ascertainableat present, although some sources assume latency times of up to 128 seconds (!) in energy-saving mode.
That might be acceptable for some applications, but not for the typical building automation Use Cases.
Max. outdoor range is in the region of 2 km in urban settings. Indoor range is presently unknown, but isobviously greatly reduced. In keeping with the SRD standard, transmitting power is limited to 25 mW
LoRaWAN is not standardized. All transmitters and receivers utilize integrated circuits supplied by
Semtech Corporation. LoRaWAN devices cannot communicate directly amongst themselves, only with anoverriding infrastructure. This infrastructure can integrate components with differing spreading factors(i.e. it is not necessary to build up several overriding infrastructures – Seungku 2020). This flexibility isadvantageous, but of no real consequence for the applications dealt with in this document. Here,components with a low spreading factor are needed. When they are evenly distributed within a building,their effective range forms the basis for planning the overriding infrastructure. A mix of devices withvarying spreading factors would otherwise complicate planning.
The integration of LoRa devices with building automation controllers (DDC systems) is only possible via IPbased connections. LoRa sensor information is transmitted to a central application server for conversion
to IP network standard, then transmitted to the DDC system. Moreover, the LoRa application server andthe DDC system must process the information (e.g. by using the MQTT protocol). So far, no evidence
exists of successful LoRa implementation in large-scale building automation projects.
LoRa sensors for building automation applications are becoming somewhat easier to obtain, but actuators
are hard to find on the market.
Measuring and testing for LoRaWAN applications is possible, but not at satisfactory levels for a fast andpractical installation or fault-finding/debugging.

Comparison Wireless Standards for Smart Buildings v2.0

Page 23 of 45

www.igt-institut.de‚Smart Building‘ trends – a comparison of wirelessstandards for automation and control
LoRa sensors are battery-powered.
LoRaWAN supports data encryption.

Comparison Wireless Standards for Smart Buildings v2.0

Page 24 of 45

www.igt-institut.de‚Smart Building‘ trends – a comparison of wirelessstandards for automation and control
4.2.6

NB-IoT

NB-IoT (Narrow Band Internet of Things) is a feature of 4G cellular networks. It aims to make use ofexisting infrastructure for IoT applications. As for LoRa and 5G, the emphasis here is on service providers
for public networks.
Data transmission takes place via 4G (LTE) network. The use of provider services is subject to licence fees.
Data can be transmitted at rates between 16 kbit/s and 127 kbit/s. Data packet sizes can vary between
20 Bytes - 200 Bytes. Latency times can vary between 1.6 seconds and 10 seconds.
The protocol was published by 3GPP, a council formed by a number of industrial standard institutes, but
has not been updated since mid-2016 - probably due to the advent of (and foreseeable switch to) 5G
technology.
NB-IoT devices can only communicate with an overriding infrastructure.
The integration of NB-IoT devices with building automation controllers (DDC systems) is only possible via
the 4G provider platform.
NB-IoT-compatible building automation devices e.g. switches, occupancy sensors, door/window contacts
etc. (see Table 5) are not on the market and future availability is unlikely in view of impending 5G
introduction.
Measuring and testing equipment for 4G technology and NB-IoT is basically available but expensive andrequires skilful operation/training. It is unlikely that the average system integration technician would
possess - or be able to operate - such equipment.
We can assume that sensors would be either mains-powered or battery-powered (rechargeable orreplaceable). More accurate predictions are not possible, as the necessary hardware is not undergoingfurther development due to 5G.
High-level data encryption is supported.

Comparison Wireless Standards for Smart Buildings v2.0

Page 25 of 45

www.igt-institut.de‚Smart Building‘ trends – a comparison of wirelessstandards for automation and control
4.2.7

SigfoxLike LoRa, Sigfox was developed to connect devices over longer distances. This technology is sourced
directly by the Sigfox S.A. company, which also acts as provider. Sigfox is aimed mainly at the IoT (Internetof Things), including the field of building automation. Most applications feature a low sensor density andbuilding-to-building outdoor communication in peripheral urban and rural areas.
In Europe, Sigfox operates on 868,3 MHz and therefore within the SRD frequency range - suited totransmitting short data packets (see Chapter 4.1). Data can be transmitted at a rate of 100 Bit/s. Data
packet size is 12 Byte. Latency times are not ascertainable at present. At a rate of max. 140 packets/day,instant transmission is of little importance. That might be acceptable for some applications, but not for
the typical building automation Use Cases. Line-of-sight outdoor range is in the region of 2 km - 30 km in
urban settings. Indoor range is presently unknown, but is expected to be in the order of 3 km. In keepingwith the SRD standard, transmitting power is limited to 25 mW
The Sigfox protocol is not standardized. All transmitters and receivers utilize integrated circuits suppliedby Sigfox S.A.. Sigfox devices cannot communicate directly amongst themselves, only with an overriding
infrastructure.
The integration of Sigfox devices with building automation controllers (DDC systems) is only possible via
IP-based connections. Sigfox sensor information is transmitted to a central application server for
conversion to IP network standard, then transmitted to the DDC system. Moreover, the Sigfox application
server and the DDC system must process the information (e.g. by using the MQTT protocol). So far, noevidence exists of successful Sigfox implementation in large-scale building automation projects.
Sensors for building automation applications are not commercially available.
Measuring and testing for Sigfox applications is possible, but not at satisfactory levels for a fast andpractical installation or fault-finding/debugging.
Sigfox sensors are battery-powered.
Data encryption is supported.

Comparison Wireless Standards for Smart Buildings v2.0

Page 26 of 45

www.igt-institut.de‚Smart Building‘ trends – a comparison of wirelessstandards for automation and control
4.2.8

ThreadThe Thread wireless protocol was designed with a focus on connecting devices with in-building networks
for building automation.
The Thread protocol operates on the 2,4 GHz frequency. Data can be transmitted at a rate of 250 Bit/s.
Data packet size is 127 Bytes. Latency times beneath 100 ms can be achieved for a single transmission
path. Thread is mesh-compatible; therefore end-to-end communication can take place via a multitude ofintermediate steps, increasing total latency time. Max. indoor range is in the region of 10 m to 15 m. The
mesh topology enables large networks. However, increased energy consumption must be taken into
account. In keeping with the frequency standard, transmitting power is limited to 100 mW.
At lower levels, the Thread protocol makes use of the international IEEE 802.15.4 standard. At upper
levels, it apparently supports IPv6-addressing. According to Google, Thread is an „Open Thread“
specification. It can be assumed that devices complying with this specification are interoperable.
Thread devices communicate with so-called Thread Routers, which must be installed in adequate
numbers throughout the building. These routers are meshed, and an interface (so-called Edge Router) is
required for connection to other networks (e.g. LAN or WLAN).
The integration of Thread devices with building automation controllers (DDC systems) is similarly possible.
In addition, the Thread Edge Router and the DDC system must process the information (e.g. by using the
MQTT protocol). So far, no evidence exists of successful Thread implementation in large-scale building
automation projects.
Sensors for building automation applications are scarce on the market.
Measuring and testing equipment for a fast and practical installation, or fault-finding/debugging, is notfreely available on the market.
Thread sensors are battery-powered.
Data encryption is supported.

Comparison Wireless Standards for Smart Buildings v2.0

Page 27 of 45

www.igt-institut.de‚Smart Building‘ trends – a comparison of wirelessstandards for automation and control
4.2.9

WLAN

WLAN was developed as a high-speed alternative to cabled Ethernet connection for high-performancedevices, and is standardized within the IEEE 802.11 norm family.
Data can be transmitted at several hundred Mbit/s depending on the WLAN protocol in use. Typical data
packet size is 2.312 Byte - this can be adjusted, but the constant size of the packet header would lead to aworsening of data transfer efficiency. Since WLAN networks can be easily installed by almost anyone, therisk of interference is high - leading to slower data transfer rates. Such interference would not prevent thetransfer of individual packets, but could result in delays. Therefore, low latency times cannot be
guaranteed. In keeping with the frequency standard, transmitting power is limited to 100 mW.
A high degree of interoperability is guaranteed across devices from a broad range of suppliers.
WLAN devices can, theoretically, communicate directly amongst themselves - however, they are
customarily integrated into an overriding IP-based infrastructure (e.g. WLAN access points).
The integration of WLAN devices with building automation controllers (DDC systems) is only possible via
IP-based connection. In addition, the WLAN devices and the DDC system must process the information.
This requires the use of a technically advanced protocol, for which there is no standard or defined set of
requirements. So far, no evidence exists of successful WLAN implementation in large-scale building
automation projects
Sensors for building automation applications are scarce on the market.
Generic measuring and testing equipment (& software for laptop computers), plus user documentation, isreadily available.
The few WLAN sensors available on the market are battery-powered.
Data encryption is supported.

Comparison Wireless Standards for Smart Buildings v2.0

Page 28 of 45

www.igt-institut.de‚Smart Building‘ trends – a comparison of wirelessstandards for automation and control
4.2.10

ZigBee / ZGP (ZigBee Green Power)

The ZigBee wireless protocol was designed with a focus on connecting devices with in-building networks
for building automation.
In Europe, the ZigBee protocol operates mainly on the 2.4 GHz frequency - especially as of version 3.0.
Some devices operate on the SRD frequency (868,3 MHz). On 2.4 GHz, data can be transmitted at a rate of
250 kbit/s. Data packet size is 127 Bytes. Latency times for a single transmission path are extremely shortand, in practice, cannot be sensed even when using time-critical devices such as switches. ZigBee is meshcompatible; therefore end-to-end communication can take place via a multitude of intermediate steps,
increasing total latency time. Max. indoor range is in the region of 10 m to 15 m. The mesh topology
enables large networks. However, increased energy consumption must be taken into account. In keepingwith the frequency standard, transmitting power is limited to 100 mW.
At lower levels, the ZigBee protocol makes use of the international IEEE 802.15.4 standard. At upper
levels, it uses manufacturer-specific applications to the detriment of interoperability. Version 3.0 aims to
improve operability across devices from different suppliers.
ZigBee devices can communicate directly amongst themselves, and with an overriding infrastructure.
The integration of ZigBee devices with building automation controllers (DDC systems) is only possible via a
ZigBee IP gateway. ZigBee sensor information is transmitted via LAN to the DDC system. In addition, theZigBee devices/gateway and the DDC system must process the information (e.g. by using the MQTT
protocol). So far, no evidence exists of successful ZigBee implementation in large-scale building
automation projects.
Sensors for building automation applications are available from a small number of manufacturers.
Measuring and testing equipment is available.
ZigBee sensors are battery-powered. ZigBee 3.0 also supports self-powered Energy Harvesting Modules
and is marketed as ZigBee Green Power (ZGP).
Data encryption is supported. However, past data security issues prompt enhanced data security withcurrent Version 3.0.

Comparison Wireless Standards for Smart Buildings v2.0

Page 29 of 45

www.igt-institut.de‚Smart Building‘ trends – a comparison of wirelessstandards for automation and control
4.2.11

Z-WaveThe Z-Wave wireless protocol was designed with a focus on connecting devices with in-building networks
for building automation
In Europe, Z-Wave operates on 868,3 MHz and therefore within the SRD frequency range - suited totransmitting short data packets (see Chapter 4.1). Data can be transmitted at a rate of 100 Bit/s. Max.
data packet size is 64 Byte. Latency times for a single transmission path are extremely short and, inpractice, cannot be sensed even when using time-critical devices such as switches. Z-Wave is meshcompatible; therefore end-to-end communication can take place via a multitude of intermediate steps,
increasing total latency time. Max. indoor range is in the region of 30 m. The mesh topology enables large
networks. However, increased energy consumption must be taken into account. In keeping with thefrequency standard, transmitting power is limited to 25 mW.
The Z-Wave protocol is standardized, with documentation exclusively available to members of the ZWave Alliance.
Z-Wave devices can communicate directly amongst themselves, and with an overriding infrastructure.
The integration of Z-Wave devices with building automation controllers (DDC systems) is only possible via
a Z-Wave IP gateway. Z-Wave sensor information is transmitted via LAN to the DDC system. In addition,
the Z-Wave devices/gateway and the DDC system must process the information (e.g. by using the MQTT
protocol). So far, no evidence exists of successful Z-Wave implementation in large-scale building
automation projects.
Sensors for building automation applications are available from a large number of manufacturers. All
devices use transceiver IC components from Silicon Labs
Dedicated measuring and testing equipment is available.
Z-Wave sensors are battery-powered.
Data encryption is supported.

Comparison Wireless Standards for Smart Buildings v2.0

Page 30 of 45

www.igt-institut.de‚Smart Building‘ trends – a comparison of wirelessstandards for automation and control
5

Suitability comparison of wireless standards

In this Chapter we compare the wireless standards outlined in Chapter 4.2 with the requirements listed in
Chapter 3.2 and evaluate the results. Each standard is summarized concisely in a „protocol profile“. The
resultant overall ranking is illustrated in an overview.

5.1 Wireless standard characteristics
A holistic assessment of the suitability of each protocol is structured as follows: For each criterion, the score attained in Chapter 0 is taken into account (e.g. for „Manufacturer
dependence“ 0 points for „low“, 1 point for „middle“ and 2 points for „high“)
 The total number of points scored by each protocol is subdivided by the number of criteria being
considered, resulting in the following ranking:Ø score0.0 to ≤ 0.5
0.5 to ≤ 1.5
1.5 to 2.0

Overall suitability
Low
MiddleHigh „Suitability of the frequency band“ is a KO criterion. This means that the overall suitability ranking for agiven wireless standard will not exceed the value attained in the „Suitability of the frequency band“
rating.

Comparison Wireless Standards for Smart Buildings v2.0

Page 31 of 45

www.igt-institut.de‚Smart Building‘ trends – a comparison of wirelessstandards for automation and control
5G
Criterion for determining suitability
Suitability of the frequency band (KO criterion)
Unnecessarily high data transmission rate and excessive range; therefore, excessive
sensor energy consumption.
Manufacturer dependence
Low manufacturer dependence; dependence on service provider, fees payable forprovider services.

Score
Low
(0 points)
Middle(1 point)
No owninfrastructure(2 points)

Infrastructure
No own infrastructure necessary, service provider infrastructure available.
Integrability
Integration of sensor data with building automation controllers (DDC systems) is only
possible via an IP-based network (no direct connection possible).
Market availability
Sensors for building automation applications are not yet available.
Measuring & testing
Measuring & testing equipment is available, but costly and complicated to use.
Power supply
Mains power, or battery-powered sensors.
Data encryption
Data security solutions available.
Overall assessment
At present, unsuitable for building automation applications due to frequency bandcharacteristics.

Comparison Wireless Standards for Smart Buildings v2.0

Page 32 of 45

Middle(1 point)
Low(0 points)
Middle(1 point)
Batterypowered(1 point)High(2 points)
Low(KO criterion)

www.igt-institut.de‚Smart Building‘ trends – a comparison of wirelessstandards for automation and control

BLE (Bluetooth Low Energy)
Criterion for determining suitability
Suitability of the frequency band (KO criterion)
Data transmission rate, range and latency time within the required range.
Manufacturer dependenceStandardized protocol. Limited device compatibility/interoperability.
Infrastructure
Integration of sensor data requires an own infrastructure. Mesh technology can help
to lower costs.
Integrability
Integration of sensor data with building automation controllers (DDC systems) is
possible directly or via an IP-based network. Many substandards hinderinteroperability.
Market availability
Limited device availability for building automation applications.
Measuring & testing
Dedicated equipment, plus the relative user documentation, is available and easy touse.

Middle(1 point)
Middle(1 point)High(2 points)
Batterypowered(1 points)
High(2 points)

Power supply
Mains power, or battery-powered sensors.
Data encryption
Data security solutions available.
Overall assessment
Essentially suitable for building automation applications. However, reduced
interoperability and the lack of direct integrability, as well as reduced market
availability of the necessary components and the lack of self-powered sensor
technology, represent major deficits.

Comparison Wireless Standards for Smart Buildings v2.0

Score
High
(2 points)
Middle(1 point)
Infrastructure/Mesh(1 point)

Page 33 of 45

Middle(Ø 1.4 points)

www.igt-institut.de‚Smart Building‘ trends – a comparison of wirelessstandards for automation and control

EnOceanCriterion for determining suitability
Suitability of the frequency band (KO criterion)
Data transmission rate, range and latency time within the required range.
Manufacturer dependenceStandardized protocol. High interoperability.
Infrastructure
Backbone infrastructure required for integration of sensor data.
Integrability
Integration of sensor data with building automation controllers (DDC systems) is
possible directly or via an IP-based network.
Market availability
A broad range of sensors for building automation automation applications is available.
Measuring & testing
Dedicated equipment, plus the relative user documentation, is available and easy touse.
Power supply
Energy Harvesting for all devices (self-powered).
Data encryption
Data security solutions available.

Score
High
(2 points)low(2 points)
Infrastructure(1 point)

Overall assessment
Eminently suited for building automation applications.

High(Ø 1.9 points)

Comparison Wireless Standards for Smart Buildings v2.0

Page 34 of 45High(2 points)
High(2 points)
High(2 points)
Self-powered(2 points)
High(2 points)

www.igt-institut.de‚Smart Building‘ trends – a comparison of wirelessstandards for automation and control

KNX RF
Criterion for determining suitability
Suitability of the frequency band (KO criterion)
Data transmission rate, range and latency time within the required range.
Manufacturer dependenceStandardized protocol.
Infrastructure
Backbone infrastructure required for integration of sensor data.
Integrability
Integration of sensor data with building automation controllers (DDC systems) only
possible via a KNX-TP-based network (i.e. no direct integration).
Market availability
Limited device availability for building automation applications.
Measuring & testing
Dedicated equipment is not available. Measuring & testing require cable-based
connection to wireless interfaces.

Score
High
(2 points)
Low(2 points)
Infrastructure(1 point)
Middle(1 point)
Middle(1 point)
Middle(1 point)
Batterypowered(1 point)High(2 points)

Power supply
Mains power, or battery-powered sensors.
Data encryption
Data security solutions available.
Overall assessment
Essentially suitable for building automation applications. However, reduced availabilityof measuring & testing equipment and the lack of direct integrability, as well as
reduced market availability of the necessary components and the lack of self-powered
sensor technology, represent major deficits.

Comparison Wireless Standards for Smart Buildings v2.0

Page 35 of 45

Middle(Ø 1.4 points)

www.igt-institut.de‚Smart Building‘ trends – a comparison of wirelessstandards for automation and control

LoRa
Criterion for determining suitability
Suitability of the frequency band (KO criterion)
Data rates and latency times within acceptable limits. Data package size unnecessarily
large and range is excessive (Lora with SF7)
Manufacturer dependence
No standardized protocol. All devices use single-source IC components.
Infrastructure
Backbone infrastructure required for integration of sensor data. LoRa networks areused in some urban ares as an alternative, provider-dependent solution.
Integrability
Integration of sensor data with building automation controllers (DDC systems) is only
possible via an IP-based network (no direct connection possible).
Market availability
Sensors for building automation applications are becoming increasingly available.
Actuators are very scarce.
Measuring & testing
Measuring & testing equipment is available, but complicated to use.
Power supply
Mains power, or battery-powered sensors.
Data encryption
Data security solutions available.
Overall assessment
Basically suitable for building automation applications. However, supplier limitations
together with the lack of direct integration and the very limited offer of automation
devices (plus the very limited range of test equipment) and, last not least, the lack ofself-powered technology are important deficits.

Comparison Wireless Standards for Smart Buildings v2.0

Page 36 of 45

Score
Middle(1 point)
High(0 points)
Infrastructure(1 point)
Middle(1 point)
Middle(1 point)
Middle(1 point)
Batterypowered(1 point)High(2 points)

Middle(Ø 1,0 point)

www.igt-institut.de‚Smart Building‘ trends – a comparison of wirelessstandards for automation and control

NB-IoT
Criterion for determining suitability
Suitability of the frequency band (KO criterion)
Unnecessarily high data transmission rate and excessive range; therefore, excessive
sensor energy consumption. High latency times.
Manufacturer dependence
Low manufacturer dependence; dependence on service provider, fees payable forprovider services.

Score
Low
(0 points)
Middle(1 point)
No owninfrastructure(2 points)

Infrastructure
No own infrastructure necessary, service provider infrastructure available.
Integrability
Integration of sensor data with building automation controllers (DDC systems) is only
possible via an IP-based network (no direct connection possible).
Market availability
Sensors for building automation applications are not yet available.
Measuring & testing
Measuring & testing equipment is available, but costly and complicated to use.
Power supply
Mains power, or battery-powered sensors.
Data encryption
Data security solutions available.
Overall assessment
At present, unsuitable for building automation applications due to frequency bandcharacteristics.

Comparison Wireless Standards for Smart Buildings v2.0

Page 37 of 45

Middle(1 point)
Low(0 points)
Middle(1 point)
Batterypowered(1 point)High(2 points)
Low(KO criterion)

www.igt-institut.de‚Smart Building‘ trends – a comparison of wirelessstandards for automation and control

SigfoxCriterion for determining suitability
Suitability of the frequency band (KO criterion)
Unnecessarily high data transmission rate and excessive range; therefore, excessive
sensor energy consumption. High latency times. Limited transmitting capacity.
Manufacturer dependence
No standardized protocol. All devices use single-source IC components. Provider
dependency.

Score
Low
(0 points)
High(0 points)
No owninfrastructure(2 points)

Infrastructure
No own infrastructure necessary, service provider infrastructure available.
Integrability
Integration of sensor data with building automation controllers (DDC systems) is only
possible via an IP-based network (no direct connection possible).
Market availability
Sensors for building automation applications are not available at present.
Measuring & testing
Measuring & testing equipment is available, but complicated to use.
Power supply
Mains power, or battery-powered sensors.
Data encryption
Data security solutions available.
Overall assessment
At present, unsuitable for building automation applications due to frequency bandcharacteristics.

Comparison Wireless Standards for Smart Buildings v2.0

Page 38 of 45

Middle(1 point)
Low(0 points)
Middle(1 point)
Batterypowered(1 point)High(2 points)
Low(KO criterion)

www.igt-institut.de‚Smart Building‘ trends – a comparison of wirelessstandards for automation and control

ThreadCriterion for determining suitability
Suitability of the frequency band (KO criterion)
Data transmission rate, range and latency time within the required range. Criticalenergy consumption due to high transmitting power in the 2.4 GHz frequency band,
especially with mesh structures.
Manufacturer dependenceStandardized protocol.
Infrastructure
Integration of sensor data requires an own infrastructure. Mesh technology can help
to lower costs.
Integrability
Integration of sensor data with building automation controllers (DDC systems) is only
possible via an IP-based network (no direct connection possible).
Market availability
Limited device availability for building automation applications.
Measuring & testing
Dedicated equipment is not available. Measuring & testing require cable-based
connection to wireless interfaces.

High(2 points)
Low(2 points)
Infrastructure/Mesh(1 point)
Middle(1 point)
Low(0 points)
Middle(1 point)
Batterypowered(1 point)High(2 points)

Power supply
Mains power, or battery-powered sensors.
Data encryption
Data security solutions available.
Overall assessment
Essentially suitable for building automation applications. However, reduced
availability of measuring & testing equipment and the lack of direct integrability, as
well as reduced market availability of the necessary components and the lack of selfpowered sensor technology, represent major deficits.

Comparison Wireless Standards for Smart Buildings v2.0

Score

Page 39 of 45

Middle(Ø 1.3 points)

www.igt-institut.de‚Smart Building‘ trends – a comparison of wirelessstandards for automation and control
WLAN
Criterion for determining suitability
Suitability of the frequency band (KO criterion)
Unnecessarily high data transmission rate; therefore, excessive sensor energy
consumption. Critical energy consumption due to high transmitting power in the 2.4
GHz frequency band.
Manufacturer dependenceStandardized protocol.

Score
Low
(0 points)
Low(2 points)
Infrastructure/Mesh(1 point)

Infrastructure
Backbone infrastructure required for integration of sensor data.
Integrability
Integration of sensor data with building automation controllers (DDC systems) is only
possible via an IP-based network (no direct connection possible).
Market availability
Limited device availability for building automation applications.
Measuring & testing
Dedicated equipment, plus the relative user documentation, is available and easy to
use.

Low
(0 points)
High(2 points)
Batterypowered(1 point)High(2 points)

Power supply
Mains power, or battery-powered sensors.
Data encryption
Data security solutions available.
Overall assessment
At present, unsuitable for building automation applications due to frequency bandcharacteristics.

Comparison Wireless Standards for Smart Buildings v2.0

Middle(1 point)

Page 40 of 45

Low(KO criterion)

www.igt-institut.de‚Smart Building‘ trends – a comparison of wirelessstandards for automation and control
ZigBee / ZGP
Criterion for determining suitability
Suitability of the frequency band (KO criterion)
Data transmission rate, range and latency time within the required range.
Manufacturer dependence
Partly standardized protocol. Manufacturer-specific implementation; lowinteroperability.
Infrastructure
Integration of sensor data requires an own infrastructure. Mesh technology can help
to lower costs.
Integrability
Integration of sensor data with building automation controllers (DDC systems) is only
possible via an IP-based network (no direct connection possible).
Market availability
Limited device availability for building automation applications.
Measuring & testing
Dedicated equipment, plus the relative user documentation, is available and easy touse.
Power supply
Mains power, or battery-powered sensors. Energy Harvesting for some devices (selfpowered).
Data encryption
Data security solutions available. Past data security issues resolved with current
Version 3.0.

Overall assessment
Essentially suitable for building automation applications. However, manufacturerspecific implementation (i.e. manufacturer dependence) and the lack of direct
integrability, as well as reduced market availability of the necessary components,
represent major deficits.

Comparison Wireless Standards for Smart Buildings v2.0

Page 41 of 45

Score
High
(2 points)
Middle(1 point)
Infrastructure/Mesh(1 point)
Middle(1 point)
Middle(1 point)High(2 points)
Batterypowered(1 point)High(2 points)

Middle(Ø 1.4 points)

www.igt-institut.de‚Smart Building‘ trends – a comparison of wirelessstandards for automation and control
Z-WaveCriterion for determining suitability
Suitability of the frequency band (KO criterion)
Data transmission rate, range and latency time within the required range.
Manufacturer dependence
Manufacturer-specific standardized protocol. Varying implementation; lowinteroperability.
Infrastructure
Integration of sensor data requires an own infrastructure. Mesh technology can help
to lower costs.
Integrability
Integration of sensor data with building automation controllers (DDC systems) is only
possible via an IP-based network (no direct connection possible).
Market availability
A broad range of sensors for building automation automation applications is available.
Measuring & testing
Dedicated equipment, plus the relative user documentation, is available and easy touse.
Power supply
Mains power, or battery-powered sensors.
Data encryption
Data security solutions available.
Overall assessment
Essentially suitable for building automation applications. However, varying
implementation (i.e. manufacturer dependence) and the lack of direct integrability, as
well as the lack of self-powered sensor technology, represent major deficits.

Comparison Wireless Standards for Smart Buildings v2.0

Page 42 of 45

Score
High
(2 points)
Middle(1 point)
Infrastructure/Mesh(1 point)
Middle(1 point)High(2 points)
High(2 points)
Batterypowered(1 point)High(2 points)High(Ø 1.5 points)

www.igt-institut.deComparison Wireless Standards for Smart Buildings v2.0

Page 43 of 45

Low(KO-Crit.)

High

Data
encryption

Overallsuitability

Battery

Power supply

Low

Avaiability of
hardwarecomp.

MiddleMiddleIntegrability

Measuringand testing

Infrastructure

No ownInfrastructure

Infrastructure

Middle(Ø 1.4 Pt)

High

BatteyHigh

MiddleMiddleMiddleHigh

BLE

MiddleLow

5G

Manufacturer
dependence

Suitability of
the frequency
band (KOcriterion)

CriterionHigh(Ø 1.9 Pt)

High

Self-powered

High

High

High

Infrastructure

Low

High

EnOceanMiddle(Ø 1.4 Pt)

High

Battery

MiddleMiddleMiddleInfrastructure

Low

High

KNX RF

Middle(Ø 1,0 Pt)

HighBattery

MiddleMiddleMiddleInfrastructureHigh

MiddleLoRa

Low(KO-Crit.)

High

Battery

MiddleLow

MiddleNo ownInfrastructure

MiddleLow

NB-IoT

Low(KO-Crit.)

High

Battery

MiddleLow

MiddleNo ownInfrastructure

High

Low

Sigfox

Middle(Ø 1.3 Pt)

High

Battery

MiddleLow

MiddleInfrastructure/
Mesh

Low

High

ThreadLow(KOCrit.)High

BatteryHigh

Low

MiddleInfrastructure
/Mesh

Low

Low

WLAN

Middle(Ø 1.4 Pt)

High

BatteryHigh

MiddleMiddleInfrastructure/
Mesh

MiddleHigh

ZigBeeHigh(Ø 1.5 Pt)

HighBattery

High

High

MiddleInfrastructure/
Mesh

MiddleHigh

Z-Wave‚Smart Building‘ trends – a comparison of wirelessstandards for automation and control

5.2 Overview of findings

www.igt-institut.de‚Smart Building‘ trends – a comparison of wirelessstandards for automation and control
6Conclusions

Various wireless standards are available for building automation applications. The most suitable wirelesstechnology can only be identified, case by case, according to the „use cases“.
In this context it has become apparent that the so-called „Wide Area Networks“ are unsuitable for today’s
and tomorrow’s Smart Building applications. This technology is well suited to integrating wireless devices
into public areas, i.e. where it is impossible to establish one’s own infrastructure. In modern buildings,
however, setting up an own infrastructure or establishing mesh networks presents no problems andmakes excellent sense in consideration of the density of the sensor networks.
Other wireless technologies are more - or less - suited to this kind of application. The possibility ofintegrating wireless devices (especially sensors) into building automation systems - e.g. controllers and
DDC-systems - is of particular relevance. The support for specific wireless tecnologies offered bycontroller manufacturers plays an important role. As does the possibility of sourcing a broad range ofcompatible components on the open market. Not to mention the great advantages offered by selfpowered wireless devices requiring neither batteries nor mains power.
From these points of view, the EnOcean and Z-Wave wireless standards appear to be ideal for use in„Smart Buildings“. EnOcean achieved a mean score of 1.9 points on the suitability index followed by ZWave with 1.5 points.
However, these technologies cater for different market segments. EnOcean is predestined for use inprofessionally-installed integrated systems for Smart Home and non-residential building solutions andfeatures higher levels of interoperability. In contrast, Z-Wave is better suited to „DIY“ Smart Home
consumer-level retrofit applications.

Comparison Wireless Standards for Smart Buildings v2.0

Page 44 of 45

www.igt-institut.de‚Smart Building‘ trends – a comparison of wirelessstandards for automation and control
7

SourcesAbbreviation[AN1141][Becker 2007][de 2012][EN15232 2017][EnO 2019][EnO 2020][Hüttemann 2020][IGT 2015][IGT 2019][InfoTip 2020][Kabitzsch 2015][KNX 2013][KNX 2015][LoRa 2020][Pätz 2017][Rick 2017][Spörk et al 2019][Thread 2015][ZigBee 2020][Z-Wave 2020][Pötsch 2019][Seungku 2020]

SourceAN1141: Thread Mesh Network Performance; Silicon Labs; 2019
Energieeffizienz durch Einsatz von Raum- und Gebäudeautomation mit Bezug
zur DIN V 18599 und EN 15232, Martin Becker; Vortrag zur GLT
Anwendertagung; 2007
Aufbau, Test und Optimierung einer Funkverbindung; dresden elektronik;
2012
DIN EN 15232-1 Energieeffizienz von Gebäuden; Beuth Verlag GmbH; 2017
EnOcean Serial Protocol 3 (ESP3); EnOcean GmbH; 2019https://www.enocean-alliance.org/de/; EnOcean Alliance; 2020
Trends von Raumautomation und Building Management Systemen inmodernen Bürogebäuden; Dominik Hüttemann; 2020
Fragebogen „Planungsprozess Smart Home & Smart Office“; Institut fürGebäudetechnologie; 2015
Planungsprozess(BMS-IoT)-Checkliste, Institut für Gebäudetechnologie; 2019
Bluetooth Kompendium; InfoTip Service GmbH
(https://kompendium.infotip.de/bluetooth.html); 2020
Drahtlose und Drahtgebundene Sensor-Aktor-Netzwerke; Prof. Klaus
Kabitzsch; TU Dresden; 2015
Grundlagen zum KNX Standard; KNX Organisation; 2013
Systemdokumentation KNX RF; Giersiepen GmbH & Co. KG; 2015
https://lora-alliance.org/; LoRa Alliance; 2020
Dr. Christian Pätz; Z-Wave: Die Funktechnologie für das Smart Home; 2017
Analyse bestehender Smart Home Systeme mit dem besonderen Fokus auf
das Schlüsselmanagement; Thorsten Rick; Hochschule Bonn-Rhein-Sieg; 2017
Improving the Timeliness of Bluetooth Low Energy in Noisy RF Environments;
Michael Spörk, Carlo Alberto Boano, Kay Römer (Graz University ofTechnology); 2019
Thread Usage of 6LoWPAN, Silicon Labs; 2015
https://zigbeealliance.org/de/; ZigBee Alliance; 2020
https://z-wavealliance.org/; Z-Wave Alliance; 2020
Towards end-to-end latency of LoRaWAN: experimental analysis and IoTApplicability ; Albert Pötsch, Florian Hammer; IEEE International Workshop
on Factory Communication Systems (WFCS) 2019
An Adaptive Spreading Factor Selection Scheme for a Single Channel LoRa
modem; Kim Seungku, Leon Heonkook, Jeon Sungho ; 2020

Comparison Wireless Standards for Smart Buildings v2.0

Page 45 of 45

www.igt-institut.de