1. doc.: IEEE 802.15-08-0480-01-0006 Submission July 2008 Kiran Bynam, SamsungSlide 1 Project: IEEE P802.15 Working Group for Wireless Personal Area Networks (WPANs) Submission Title: Power consumption in BAN networks Date Submitted: July 15th, 2008 Source: Kiran Bynam, Ranjeet Kumar Patro, Giriraj Goyal, Arun Naniyat, EunTae Won Contact: Kiran Bynam, Samsung Electronics Voice: +91 80 41819999, E-Mail: kiran.bynam@samsung.com Re: [] Abstract: brief study on Power consumption in BAN Networks Purpose:To discuss the low power consumption in BAN Notice:This document has been prepared to assist the IEEE P802.15. It is offered as a basis for discussion and is not binding on the contributing individual's) or organization's). The material in this document is subject to change in form and content after further study. The contributor's) reserve's) the right to add, amend or withdraw material contained herein. Release:The contributor acknowledges and accepts that this contribution becomes the property of IEEE and in March’08 it would be made publicly available by P802.15.

2. doc.: IEEE 802.15-08-0480-01-0006 Submission Outline Device classification and power consumption requirements Power consumption overheads Possible way for improved power consumption of the nodes Future work

3. doc.: IEEE 802.15-08-0480-01-0006 Submission Device classification Network/Handheld devices –Master like device connected to internet/gateway –Mobile Phone device On-body BAN nodes –Sporting nodes, sensor nodes Implant BAN nodes –Medical devices On-body Network/ Hand-held devices

4. doc.: IEEE 802.15-08-0480-01-0006 Submission Power requirements Network devices can consume the reasonable amount of power –Connected to power source or replaceable battery On-body and implant nodes require minimum power consumption –Non replaceable battery for implants –It is not practical for the user to charge the (or replace the battery of) on-body nodes frequently

5. doc.: IEEE 802.15-08-0480-01-0006 Submission Packet communication overheads Many application for BAN requires small packets –Transfer of control information/ Sensor data –More Power consumption overhead for Receiver processing Probable Reasons for receiver overhead –Estimation of AFE imperfections –Estimation of Channel effects For packets with large payload, this power consumption overhead is minimum

6. doc.: IEEE 802.15-08-0480-01-0006 Submission Power Saving techniques Most widely used differential modulation –Reduces the complexity of receiver –Result in performance degradation, higher E b /N o requirement –Problems in using higher order modulation Power control algorithms –Optimize the transmit power –But, Transmit Power is less compared with receiver processing in short range networks

7. doc.: IEEE 802.15-08-0480-01-0006 Submission Pre-compensation The RF imperfections can be pre-compensated at the transmitter end of the master node and requires –Estimation of the RF imperfections from the preamble at master node –Forming a pre-compensated signal at the master node Channel can also be pre-compensated –Requires an initial estimate at the on-body node –Tracking might work for packets with relatively small delays between them Problems with pre-compensation –RF properties are liable to change with time, temperature –MAC level Feedback mechanism is required to beat the time dependent variations

8. doc.: IEEE 802.15-08-0480-01-0006 Submission Requirements for BAN scenario Different modes of operation need to be supported On-body to Air –Pre-compensation technique can be used at on-body nodes –Differential type of modulation might also help in reduction in complexity On-body to on-body –Only Differential techniques might be better in this scenario

9. doc.: IEEE 802.15-08-0480-01-0006 Submission Future work What method is preferable if the communication is between “implant-implant” and “on-body to on-body” Power savings in each of the method should be evaluated. Impact of pre-compensation from MAC perspective.

10. doc.: IEEE 802.15-08-0480-01-0006 Submission Thank You