WIRELESS SENSOR NETWORKS IN GEOPHYSICS

Charles P. Oden, Gary R. Olhoeft, Dan P. Jones, and Stan S. Smith, Earth Science Systems, LLC,
Golden, CO, USA

Abstract
A significant expense in geophysics is physically collecting data – especially data sets involving
multiple field deployments. Limited site access due to hazards, weather, legal issues, etc. may also limit
data collection. Consequently, many datasets have too few measurement types, too little spatial
coverage, and too little temporal coverage which results in increasing uncertainty and ambiguity in our
problem solutions. Wireless sensor networks are an emerging technology that addresses many of these
issues. Today’s wireless sensors are small (typically a few centimeters on a side), can be left in the field
for long periods of time without servicing, and are inexpensive enough to be considered disposable.
Wireless sensors are a combination of several recent technological advances including inexpensive
miniature sensors, low power radio telemetry, time synchronization techniques, localization techniques
(spatial awareness), and energy harvesting methods. Single chip sensors are available for measuring
electric, magnetic, and electromagnetic fields, temperature, pressure, mechanical displacement,
chemistry, attitude, and more. These sensors can be used in several geophysical methods including
seismic, DC resistivity, induced polarization, EM induction, magnetometry, and ground penetrating
radar (GPR). The small size of these sensors allows multiple types of measurements to be incorporated
in a single sensor node. Examples of the wireless sensor network applications include the long term
monitoring and assessment of infrastructure, investigations in ecology and environment, tracking fluids
or contaminant migration, and resource and exploration studies. In this paper, we review some of the
capabilities and limitations of current wireless sensor network technology.

Introduction
Wireless sensor networks (WSNs) are made of miniature, self-sufficient, sensor nodes that can
harvest energy from their environment, make measurements, and telemeter the results to a data logger
using radio communications. Each sensor node in the array is called a mote, and is typically only a few
centimeters on a side. Some motes include limited data processing capabilities. The small size and
independent operation of each mote allows a network of sensors to be installed in-situ. With in-situ
sensors in place over a long-term, many data sets can be collected over time. This provides an
inexpensive method to monitor changes in the subsurface and in man-made structures. WSNs can
provide dense data sets in time and space at a substantial cost savings over existing techniques.
However, these datasets can become huge quickly, and economic data processing will require automated
(as much as possible) data management and analysis tools. Since data collection with WSNs removes
human oversight, automated systems must verify that sensors are functional and calibrated.
WSNs are an emerging technology that incorporates several technologies. These include nano-
sensors, single chip (integrated circuit) radios, low-power electronics, and components for energy
harvesting and storage. The components of a typical sensor mote are shown in Figure 1. This mote
contains a multi-component magnetometer, a microprocessor, a radio chip, a solar cell, and a battery.
The projected cost of such a mote is substantially less than US$100 in quantity. The following sections
introduce WSN technologies, and discuss their capabilities and limits in terms of geophysical
applications.
Figure 1: Wireless sensor mote components. On the right are a battery (top) and solar cells (bottom)
for harvesting energy from the sun. The circuit board next to the battery is the sensor board, and the
board on the left has control and communications functions. The blue device on the top side of the left
board is the radio antenna. The volume of the assembled mote will be about than 1.5 cubic inches (25
cc). Courtesy of Earth Science Systems, LLC,

Power
The portability and maximum field operating time of many current portable geophysical
instruments is limited by their use of large bulky batteries. These limitations are minimized by WSNs.
Each WSN mote can operate independently for an indefinite period by harvesting energy from its
surroundings and intelligently managing power consumption. Ambient energy is converted to
electricity, which is stored in a battery for later use. This can be accomplished with photovoltaic cells
that harvest ambient light energy, with electromechanical devices that harvest energy from vibrations
and movements, and with Seebeck devices that utilize thermal energy flow. Typically, the amount of
energy that can be harvested will not allow continuous sensor operation. Since the most power intensive
operations are usually making a measurement and communicating, motes spend most of their time in a
low power or ‘hibernation’ state. The sensor may only ‘wake’ a few times per day to conduct
measurements. Radio communications require the most operating power (typically 100 milliwatts), and
the ‘hibernation’ state requires the least (a few microwatts). Passive sensors use less power than active
sensors (more information in the Data Processing section), and are used to keep power consumption at a
minimum. Battery life is dependant on many factors, including the frequency of measurements, the
amount of data recorded and transmitted, and the amount of radio noise present. In order to ensure
sustainable operation, the amount of stored energy, frequency of measurements and communications,
and rate at which energy can be harvested must be carefully measured and managed. Typically, the
average sensor mote power consumption is about 100 microwatts. Existing energy harvesting and
management methods provide sufficient energy for long term monitoring applications, but insufficient
for continuous monitoring. To simplify power management, sensor motes can be powered by a few AA
batteries, which can provide power to operate for a year or more (Polastre, 2003; Falchi, 2004). The
salient point is that there are several WSN power system technologies that will allow arrays of
geophysical sensors to be deployed in-situ for a year or more. For sensor motes that harvest energy,
environmental effects such as storms (rain, hail, snow, dust, animals, etc.) may be the survival factor that
limits deployment periods.

Communications
WSN radios are low power devices (typically radiating 1 milliwatt or less) that operate in the
industrial, scientific, and medical (ISM) radio frequency bands. Low power radios operating in these
bands do not require government radio licensing by the end user. WSN radios usually employ
techniques such as spread spectrum modulation, flexible channel selection, and frequency hopping for
more reliable communications – especially in noisy urban areas. Typically, the range of these radios is
on the order of 100 meters, and data rates vary from 10k to 250k bps (bits per second). There are many
choices for robust wireless communications that are more than adequate for logging data from
geophysical sensors, and a number of standard products are emerging (Bluetooth, Wi-fi, Zigbee, etc.).
Of these, the Zigbee (Zigbee, 2007) standard currently provides the best combination of energy
conservation, data rates, and radio range (up to 100 meters). Future wireless technology will evolve to
provide faster communications using less power. Several groups are commercializing a new generation
of low-power spread-spectrum or ultra-wideband radios with data rates in excess of 100 M bps over
short distances (Luna, 2006).
WSN communications protocols have been the topic of intense research and development over
the last decade (Karl and Willig, 2005). Existing protocols provide robust, secure (encrypted),
communications using various network topologies. Many of these protocols are tolerant of radio
interference and poor channel conditions. The star topology is perhaps the simplest network
arrangement, where a master node initiates communications with slave nodes. Alternatively, mesh
topology is one of the most flexible. Mesh protocols can route information packets from any node in a
network to another, using one of many possible redundant paths. The paths are typically chosen to
minimize power consumption. Ad-hoc protocols allow sensor nodes to join and leave a network, and
provide the ability for mobile sensor motes. Multiple transactions can occur simultaneously using
combinations of media access control (MAC) methods such as time division multiple access (TDMA,
motes communicate in assigned time slots), frequency division multiple access (FDMA, motes
communicate on different radio channels), code division multiple access (CDMA, each mote uses
different orthogonal digital codes), and carrier sense multiple access (CSMA , mote communicate when
the channel is idle).
Each WSN needs at least one connection to a data recording device, which may be located in an
office far from the WSN sensor array. There are many methods remote WSNs can use to communicate
with a data logger including satellite links, the cellular telephone systems, or wired internet connections.
Typically, communications between the WSN and the connection to the data logger is facilitated by a
radio bridge. For example, WSN data can be transmitted from the sensor network, through a radio
bridge, over the internet, to a distant data logging computer using really simple syndication (RSS) feeds.

Time and Space

Sensor arrays give significant advantages over single sensor measurements, including increased
resolution in space and time, improved signal-to-noise and signal-to-clutter, improved sensor calibration,
and imaging or tomographic reconstruction capabilities. To realize these benefits, the location of each
sensor must be known, and each sensor must be able to make synchronized measurements to a common
time base. Just as the digitizers of each channel of a seismograph must be clocked from the same time
base, the digitizer clocks on each sensor mote must be synchronized. There are several mechanisms
available for time synchronization over a wireless network. Network time protocol (NTP; Mills, 1994)
has been used for time synchronization over the internet, but with WSNs the non-determinism in
transmission times can introduce hundreds of milliseconds of uncertainty. Reference broadcast
synchronization (RBS; Elson, 2002) and time-sync protocol for sensor networks (TSPS; Ganeriwal,
2003) are MAC layer algorithms that provide WSN synchronization of approximately 10 microseconds.
Maroti et al. (2004) describe the flooding time synchronization protocol (FTSP) which provides
synchronization of about 1 microsecond. Synchronization on the order of a few microseconds is more
than sufficient for sensor arrays making many types of geophysical measurements including seismic,
electromagnetic induction, magneto-telluric, magnetic fields, resistivity, and induced polarization.
Usually, these measurements are made at frequencies below 100 kHz. Conversely, ground penetrating
radar (GPR) requires synchronization in the range of 10s to 100s of picoseconds. Implementing array
GPR measurements on WSN will require specialized radio circuitry for precise time synchronization.
Uncertainty in the location of geophysical sensors is one of the biggest difficulties in geophysics.
Traditional geophysical survey planning includes budgeting for time and costs related to determining
location of geophysical sensors. This may include surveying in a data collection grid (e.g. seismic line
and geophone locations), or collecting location data with each measurement (e.g. global positioning
system (GPS) positions coincident with magnetometer or electromagnetic sensor readings). For WSNs,
the method(s) used to localize sensor motes depends on the spatial extent of the sensor array, the
required localization accuracy, and logistical constraints such as mote power limitations or financial
considerations. Several localization methods are described below. Although there are many methods
available for this task, it remains one of the most costly aspects of deploying WSN motes.
The global positioning system (GPS) is a straight-forward method for localization. GPS chips
can be added to WSN motes at a cost of US$20-30. In addition to significantly increasing the cost of the
mote, the biggest detriment to using GPS chips is the increased power consumption. Measurements by
single chip GPS systems typically have accuracies on the order of a meter (Atmel, 2007).
A variety of algorithms use steady-state or pulsed beacons for mote localization. Motes can
measure the received signal strength, the time of arrival, or the angle of arrival of the beacon’s signal
(Meguerdichian et al., 2001; Niculescu and Nath, 2003; Priyantha et al., 2001; Priyantha et al., 2000).
The mote’s locations can be calculated by triangulation using measurements from multiple beacons, and
individual sensor motes can also serve as beacons. Typical beacon signals include radio waves, acoustic
waves, magnetic sources, and infrared light. In free space, many of these methods have accuracies on
the order of a meter, however higher performance systems also exist. For example, a radio
interferometric ranging technique that uses the mote’s radio (Maroti et al., 2005) is accurate to a few
centimeters in free space, and the ‘Nest of Birds’ (Ascension, 2002) magnetic beacon tracking system
has an accuracy of less than 2 mm. Unfortunately, for many geophysical applications, the accuracy of
these methods is hampered by heterogeneous material properties and multiple energy propagation paths.
For example, hard and soft magnetic materials in the vicinity of the motes can distort the fields produced
by magnetic beacons and significantly reduce the accuracy of these sensors.
Mote locations can be determined at the time they are deployed with a variety of methods.
Photogrammetry is a commercially available technology where the relative location of a group of
objects (motes) can be determined using a series of photographs of the object array taken from different
camera positions. Camera locations are not needed. It is possible to estimate relative position of objects
to an uncertainty of 1/30,000 of the largest dimension of the sensor array (Photomodeler, 2007;
Luhmann et al., 2006). Other options in order of increasing cost include a real-time kinematic (RTK)
GPS (accuracy about 1 cm), a total station (accuracy about 1 mm, Leica, 2007), or a laser tracking
system (accuracy about 100 µm, Faro, 2007).
Most geophysical sensors make polarized measurements (e.g. magnetometers, seismometers,
etc.), and therefore the orientation of sensor motes must also be measured. Sensor motes with
accelerometers and magnetometers can be used to measure the sensor mote’s orientation with respect to
the earth’s gravity and magnetic fields (typically with a precision of about 1 part in 1000). These
sensors can also be used to determine if the orientation of a mote has changed since it was deployed.
Typically, accuracies are better than 1 degree (Microstrain, 2007). Alternatively, sensor mote
orientations can be measured using localization beacons (Priyantha et al., 2001; Priyantha et al., 2000).
For example, the ‘Nest of Birds’ uses a magnetic beacon, and has an accuracy of less than 0.5 degrees
(Ascension, 2002). Note that proximity to hard and soft magnetic materials can play havoc with
magnetic orientation sensors.

Sensors
Most questions posed in earth science and engineering can not be answered with a single
measurement type. In applied geophysics, combinations of sensors and/or methods are used to reduce
uncertainty when interpreting the data to provide more useful results. For example, magnetic and
electromagnetic methods are routinely employed in tandem as complementary techniques, where
variable targets are involved or site-specific environmental noise may affect one method adversely, but
not the other. The low cost, small size, and low power requirements of nano-sensors allow several
different types of sensors to be placed on a single WSN sensor mote. These multi-sensor WSN motes
will provide more useful data sets at a lower cost. Because nano-sensor technology is a rapidly evolving
field, future WSNs will be able to integrate even more sensors types.
Sensors applicable to traditional geophysical measurements are discussed below. This is not
intended as an all-inclusive discussion, but as an introduction to several sensor types that are suitable for
WSNs. For instance, radiation detectors (pin diodes, etc.), ion specific sensors, temperature and
moisture sensors, and cameras and video imagers are readily available. The pace of research and
development in nano-sensor technology is expanding the capabilities of these sensors and opening new
research areas – especially in chemistry and biology.
Micro electro-mechanical system (MEMS) accelerometers are single chip devices that can make
multi-component seismic measurements. They can also measure the orientation of the mote (which is
applicable to slope stability and other applications). MEMS accelerometers typically have larger
bandwidths (DC to well into the kHz range; Colibrys, 2007) than typical geophones (10s to 100s of Hz).
However, their sensitivity (2.4 V/g is typical) is less than that of high quality geophones (~180 V/g at 10
Hz; I/O, 2007). MEMS accelerometers are ideally suited for shallow high resolution (i.e. high
frequency) seismic applications. They have also found widespread use in inertial measurement and
navigation systems.
Various single chip magnetic field sensors are available. These sensors include giant
magnetoresistive (GMR), anisotropic magnetoresistive (AMR), and tunneling magnetoresistive (TMR)
devices. These devices can measure field strengths less than 100 pT over frequencies ranging from DC
to well into the MHz region (Caruso et al., 1998). They are well suited for use in electromagnetic
induction measurements, magnetotellurics, and magnetics. They may also be suitable for low frequency
GPR.
Dipole electric potential measurements are only limited by the sensitivity of low-power
electronic components. Sensitivities of better than a microvolt with a bandwidth in the MHz range are
readily attained. The use of electric potential measurement in WSNs could include galvanic resistivity,
induced polarization, and spontaneous potential.
WSN motes provide low noise environments for making precise measurements of small signals.
Since sensor motes are battery powered, their power supplies are free of noise from the power
distribution grid, and from noise inherent in linear and switching power supplies. Their size and
construction also makes them more easily shielded from external sources of noise. Furthermore, since
sensor motes are electrically isolated, cross talk between sensor circuits in arrays is minimized. Finally,
sensor signals are conditioned and digitized on the mote, so there is less signal degradation due to analog
signal transmission.
Data Processing
WSNs have the ability to generate very large quantities of data because in-situ sensor networks
can repeatedly make measurements on regular time intervals (e.g. hourly or daily). If long term
monitoring applications are to be economically feasible, data processing must be automated. Humans
should only become involved for non-routine processing and interpretation. For some types of
monitoring, this may be trivial. For instance, monitoring the modal response of a structure and only
raising a flag when change is significant is not difficult. On the other hand, automating image
processing routines for a structure that continually changes will require more effort. In any case,
without automated data processing, WSNs may not see widespread use in long term monitoring
applications.
In order to conserve power, WSN motes may make passive measurements – that is, they may
only have a receiving or measurement component. In this case, precious operating power is not used to
generate a source signal. Rather, the ambient energy is used. For instance, seismic waves,
electromagnetic waves, and electromagnetic fields are ubiquitous in urban environments. They are
generated by automobile traffic, radio broadcasts, power distribution networks, and many other
anthropogenic activities. These signals are also generated naturally by earthquakes, wind, ocean waves,
lightning storms, the sun, and other phenomenon. New geophysical data processing and imaging
techniques are needed to make use of this ambient energy. Interferometry (Curtis et al., 2006) is a
rapidly developing field that pertains to imaging using ambient waves (e.g. seismic and radio waves).
Interferometric methods have been investigated by many researchers; however, interferometric imaging
has not evolved to the point where it is routinely used in geophysical data processing. There are many
conditions (e.g. on the spatial distribution of ambient sources) that must be met for proper application of
interferometry, and these conditions do not always occur. New passive imaging algorithms must be able
to handle a wide variety of ambient fields (e.g. seismic signals generated vehicular traffic, or radio
waves from television broadcast towers). In lieu of passive imaging methods, more traditional
techniques such as pulse echo can certainly be used.

Applications
The potential applications for WSNs are widespread. WSNs are well suited for real-time
monitoring and surveillance of infrastructure such as bridges, roads, railroads, pipelines, and dams.
Significant changes in the modal response of a structure could be detected with very little data
processing. This would allow advanced warnings to be given in the event of a structural failure. For
instance, early warning of an earthen dam failure may be possible by monitoring the structural response
and determining which portions of the dam are water saturated. WSNs can play a role in homeland
security by keeping structures or borders under surveillance, and raising an alarm if unauthorized
activity occurs. Similar applications occur in monitoring high wall failure in open pit mines, slope
stability for landslides, or rock or snow slides. Examples of current geophysical applications utilizing
WSNs include vibration monitoring (Techkor, 2007) and soil moisture monitoring (Grape Networks,
2007), among others.
Traditionally, a suite of geophysical measurements has been used for monitoring environmental
cleanup sites. These measurements include resistivity, induced polarization, and electromagnetic
induction. In many cases, surveys are repeated in order to determine if remediation is progressing, or if
contaminants become mobile. Often times, the number of repeated surveys, the number of measurement
techniques, or spatial data density is limited due to financial, safety, site accessibility, or other
constraints. Employing WSNs can reduce financial pressures by reducing the cost of making repeated
measurements – without having to sacrifice some measurement types to stay within budget. More
measurements provide a more comprehensive site characterization capability, and improved resolution
in space and time. WSNs are well suited to address issues of spatial heterogeneity and to monitor
transient events. These are particularly important in fluid flow monitoring problems of many kinds,
including agricultural soil moisture, swelling clays, in situ solution or leach mining, enhanced petroleum
recovery, the condition of railroad ballast, aquifer health, and the state ecosystems and the environment.
WSNs are well suited to vadose zone studies and precision agriculture. Soil moisture content as
a function of depth can be estimated using ground penetrating radar. Alternatively, sensors pushed into
the ground can measure moisture content, saturation, ion concentration (e.g. nitrate, ammonia, chloride,
etc.), and temperature as a function of depth using sensors such as time-domain reflectometers,
hygrometers, tensiometers, piezometers, and dissolved ion probes. All of these sensors can be fitted
with WSN power and telemetry packages. Since vadose zone fluid flow is particularly difficult to
characterize, long term monitoring equipment is invaluable in locating permeable and impermeable
regions, and areas receiving preferential recharge.

Conclusions
There are many benefits to using WSN technology. One of the major benefits is better data at a
lower cost. Given a fixed budget, WSNs have the capability to collect more dense data in space and
time and employ more measurement types than can traditional survey methods. It is not necessary to
repeatedly pay a field crew to collect data over time. Geophysical WSN motes currently being
developed will cost less than $100 per mote, but this cost may decrease to less than $10 as production
volumes increase. Generally speaking, it is anticipated that the initial costs for WSN equipment,
installation, and creation of automated processing routines will be comparable to the cost of purchasing
standard geophysical surveying equipment, conducting a single survey, and processing the data. After
installing a WSN, the network can continue to perform over the long term with very low costs.
There are many trade-offs to designing and implementing WSNs for geophysical applications.
For instance, how many motes are needed? What accuracy is needed for localization and time
synchronization measurements (more precise time synchronization may require more energy
consumption)? Since WSNs have not been widely used in the geophysics industry, many questions
remain. Can an automated processing program be written that adequately flags events properly without
requiring significant human intervention? How often will a mote become inoperable (through
vandalism, theft, severe weather, animal activities, etc.). Certainly, the performance of WSNs in
geophysical application will be limited by the ‘weakest link’ in the system. To be successful, WSNs
must successfully integrate all of the technologies discussed above. In any case, WSN technology is
evolving rapidly, and time will bring exciting new capabilities that can address an ever increasing range
of problems. We believe that in the near future, WSNs will become one of the standard methods for
making measurements in the geophysics industry.

References
Ascension, 2002, Nest of Birds Brochure, http://www.imprintit.com/Catalog/Specs/nestofbirds.pdf.

Atmel, 2007, ANTARIS4 Single-chip GPS Receiver SuperSense, ATR0635,

http://www.atmel.com/dyn/resources/prod_documents/doc4928.pdf.

Caruso, M. J., Bratland, T., Smith, C. H., and Schneider, R., 1998, A New Perspective on Magnetic
Field Sensing, Sensors Magazine, v. 15, n. 12, pp. 34-46.

Colibrys, 2007, MEMS Capacitive Accelerometer Data Sheet SF1500S/1500SN, www.colibrys.com.

Curtis, A., Gerstoft, P., Sato, H., Snieder, R., and Wapenaar, K., 2006, Seismic Interferometry – Turning
Noise into Signal, Leading Edge v. 25, p. 1082.

Elson, J., Girod, L., and Estrin, D., 2002, Fine-Grained Network Time Synchronization using Reference
Broadcasts, Proceedings of the fifth symposium OSDI ‘02.

Falchi, A., 2004, Sensor networks: performance measurements with motes technology, Tech. Rep.,
University of Pisa, Italy, 2004.

Faro, 2007, Laser Tracker X Product Brochure, www.faro.com.

Ganeriwal, S., Kumar, R., and Srivastava, M. B. , 2003, Timing-Sync Protocol for Sensor Networks,
SenSys ’03.

Grape Networks, 2007, Product Description, www.grapenetworks.com

I/O, 2007, Geophones Brochure, www.i-o.com.

Karl, H., and Willig, A, 2005, Protocols and Architectures for Wireless Sensor Networks, Wiley, 526 p.

Leica, 2007, Leica TPS1200+ Brochure, www.leica-geosystems.com.

Luhmann, T., Robson, S. Kyle, S., Harley, I., 2006, Close Range Photogrammetry: Principles, Methods
and Applications, Whittles Publishing.

Luna, L., 2006, Ultrawideband Spins It Wheels, Mobile Radio Technology, August.

Maroti, M., Kusy, B., Balogh, G., Volgyesi, P., Nadas, A., Molnar, K., Dora, S., Ledeczi, A., 2005,
Radio Interferometric Geolocation, The Institute for Software Integrated Systems, Tech. Report
ISIS-05-602, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tennessee.
Maroti, M., Kusy, B., Simon, G., and Ledeczi, A., 2004, The Flooding Time Synchronization Protocol,
The Institute for Software Integrated Systems, Tech. Report ISIS-04-501, Vanderbilt University,
Nashville, Tennessee.

Meguerdichian, S., Slijepcevic, S., Karayan, V., and Potkonjak, M., 2001, Localized Algorithms in
Wireless Ad-hoc Networks: Location Discovery and Sensor Exposure, in Proceedings of the 2nd
ACM International Symposium on Mobile Ad Hoc Networking and Computing, pages 106–116,
ACM Press.

Microstrain, 2007, 3DM Product Datasheet, http://www.microstrain.com/pdf/3dmflier.pdf.

Mills, D. L., 1994, Internet Time Synchronization: The Network Time Protocol, in Yang, Z. and
Marsland, T. A., Global States and Time Distributed Systems. IEEE Computer Society Press.

Niculescu, D., and Nath, B., 2003, Ad hoc Positioning System (APS) using AOA, in Proceedings of
IEEE INFOCOM 2003—The Conference on Computer Communications, 22(1): 1734–1743.

Photomodeler, 2007, Factors Affecting Accuracy in Photogrammetry,

http://www.photomodeler.com/kb/entry/63/

Polastre, J., 2003, Design and Implementation of Wireless Sensor Networks for Habitat Monitoring,
Master’s thesis, University of California, Berkeley.

Priyantha, N. B., Chakraborty, A., and Balakrishnan, H., 2000, The Cricket Location Support System, in
Proceedings of the 6th Annual International Conference on Mobile Computing and Networking,
pages 32–43, ACM Press.

Priyantha, N. B., Miu, A., Balakrishnan, H., and Teller, S., 2001, The Cricket Compass for
Contextaware Mobile Applications, in Proceedings of the 7th Annual International Conference
on Mobile Computing and Networking, pages 1–14, ACM Press.

Techkor, 2007, Industrial Product Description, www.techkor.com

Zigbee, 2007, www.zigbee.org.