white paper„Smart Building“ trends – a comparison of wirelessstandards for automation and control
by Prof. Dr. Michael Krödel (IGT – Institut für Gebäudetechnologie)
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 the content of this document.

Building automation is in the advance. Systems are becoming increasingly sophisticated, offering more
and more value-added service features thanks to IT-based systems which surpass what room/building-management systems could offer until now.
These systems are heavily reliant upon data from within spaces and buildings, which can easily begathered and transmitted using wireless technology. Various wireless standards are available. The mostsuitable wireless technology can only be identified, case by case, according to the specific applicationand the „use cases“.
In this context, it has become apparent that the so-called „Wide Area Networks“ are unsuitable fortoday’s and tomorrow’s Smart Building applications. This technology is well suited to integrating wirelessdevices into public areas, i.e. where it is impossible to establish one’s 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 andDDC-systems – is of particular relevance. The support for specific wireless technologies 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 to 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.
Use Cases in modern buildings
The foreseeable Use Cases form the basis for the evaluation of the suitability of different wireless datatransmission standards. One must first define what needs to be automated to evaluate the best solution
amongst the various wireless standards available.

Comparison Wireless Standards for Smart Building (Summary)1white paper
Typical room-/building-automation Use Cases include-----

Individual room temperature regulation according to human presence and window status.
Individual room ventilation and cooling depending on air temperature, air quality (CO2 and/or VOCloads), and humidity.
Individual room lighting - illumination can be dimmed when areas are not in use. Switches cangovern individual lights or groups of lights as needed. The artificial light intensity can also vary
according to natural light intensity depending on the weather and time of day.
Sunblinds/shutters can be deployed automatically in the function of room temperature(summertime heat protection).
Switches for illumination and external light shading can be optimally placed, with the free
positioning of furniture and partitions/walls. Handheld remote-controls can also be employed.
The supply of warmth for heating systems or refrigeration for cooling systems can be regulated tomatch current and projected system demands (including criteria for flow temperatures and pumprotation speed regulation).
Multiple heat/cold-generating units can be governed according to system performancerequirements and loads
Heat regeneration for ventilation systems can be configured to avoid icing or overheating.
Fault alarms, operating hours, and energy consumption can be protocolled and evaluated.
Further value-added services currently seeing intensive development include:
The smartphone-based dynamic booking/release of conference-room facilities and workplaces inopen-plan offices. Meetings finishing ahead of schedule and unoccupied workplaces can berecognized and taken into account for optimal facility management.
Occupancy sensors can, for instance, be used to analyze the use of meeting rooms, 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 energy-saving 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 perfect basis for zone planning purposes (e.g. room size, the position ofmeeting rooms, etc.).
Employees and visitors can be easily guided through the building complex, making orienteering
simpler in unfamiliar facilities e.g. when looking for a specific meeting room
Canteen usage (i.e. foreseeable waiting times) can be monitored and visualized from the workplace.
The frequency of washroom usage can be monitored and translated into appropriate cleaningschedules.
Usage of lifts, coffee machines, etc. can be monitored and translated into adequate maintenanceschedules.
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 preemptive measures.

Comparison Wireless Standards for Smart Building (Summary)2white paper
Parameters for the analysis of wireless standard suitability for automation and control
The Use Cases enable us to make accurate assumptions concerning the suitability of individual wirelessstandards. These are the relevant criteria:-----

Suitability of the frequency band (KO-criterion): the Use Cases typically feature small datapackets (10-100 bytes), latency times from 0.1 to 1 second, and a range from 10 to 100m. The
suitability of the frequency band is of decisive importance - any functional limitation, even if partial,
would essentially disqualify the wireless standard in question for this type of application.
Manufacturer dependence: in the best interests of the user, wireless standards should operate
across as many suppliers as possible. Wireless technology should be standardized to allow for
maximal interoperability between devices produced by different suppliers.
Infrastructure: ideally, an own infrastructure should not be required. This is a given when signals
can be transmitted over greater distances and are particularly relevant when sensor network density
is low. In return, an infrastructure consisting of cable-connected antennas and gateways allowing
for meshed communication is required.
Integrability: ideally, wireless standards should be broadly supported by multiple manufacturersof commercially-available controllers and gateways, with proven reference project information.
Broad availability of the necessary hardware components: all the necessary sensors must be
freely available on the open market.
Measuring and testing: the appropriate fault-finding equipment and user documentation must beavailable.
Power supply: one of the main advantages of wireless technology consists of the free positioningof sensor devices. A cabled power supply represents a hindrance. Ideally, sensors should be selfpowered. For battery-powered devices, low power consumption is of great importance.
Data encryption: data security and integrity must be guaranteed by encryption technology
Wireless standard suitability for building automation and control

Comparison Wireless Standards for Smart Building (Summary)

3white paper
This table shows a comprehensive comparison. Details can be found in the study mentioned below:

Criterion

5G/ NB-IoT/ Sigfox/WLAN

BLE

Suitability of thefrequency band (KOcriterion)

Low (unnecessarily highdata rates/ range/energy consumption)

HighHigh

High

MiddleHighHigh

High

Manufacturer
dependence

Middle

Low

Low

High

Low

MiddleMiddleInfrastructure

Infrastruc
Infrastruc Infrastruc Infrastruc
Infrastruct Infrastruc Infrastruc
ture/
ture/
ture/
ture/
ure
ture
ture
Mesh
Mesh
Mesh
Mesh

Integrability

MiddleHighMiddle

MiddleMiddleMiddleMiddleMiddleHighMiddle

MiddleLow

MiddleHigh

Measuring andtesting

HighHigh

MiddleMiddleMiddleHighHigh

Power supply

MiddleHighMiddle

MiddleMiddleMiddleMiddleData encryption

HighHighHighHighHigh

High

High

Middle(Ø 1,4 Pt)

High(Ø 1,9 Pt)

Broad availability of
the necessary
hardware comp.

Overall suitability

Irrelevant due tounsatisfactory frequency
band characteristics

Low(KO criterion)

EnOcean KNX RF

LoRa

Thread ZigBee Z-Wave

MiddleMiddleMiddleMiddle(Ø 1,4 Pt) (Ø 1,0 Pt) (Ø 1,3 Pt) (Ø 1,4 Pt)

High (Ø
1,5 Pt)Source: „Smart Building“ trends – a comparison between various wireless standards; IGT – Institut für Gebäudetechnologie; 2020

About EnOcean Alliance
The EnOcean Alliance is an international association of leading companies in the building and IT industries
founded in 2008. The open, non-profit organization is committed to enabling and promoting interoperable,maintenance-free, and proven eco-systems based on the wireless EnOcean radio standard (ISO/IEC14543-3-10/11). With their decades of experience, EnOcean Alliance members strive to co-create ahealthy, safe, and sustainable environment in smart homes, intelligent buildings, and smart spaces for thebenefit of all. The EnOcean Alliance headquarters are located in San Ramon, California.
www.enocean-alliance.org
Press Contact (for more information)
Evelyn Gilde-Back EnOcean Alliance
M +49 (0)176 636 13 964
press@enocean-alliance.org

Comparison Wireless Standards for Smart Building (Summary)4