2016 Online International Conference on Green Engineering and Technologies (IC-GET)
ZigBee Wireless Sensor Network Simulation with
Various Topologies
J.Jaslin deva gifty
PG Scholar, Dept. of ECE
Dr.Mahalingam College of Engineering & Technology
Coimbatore, India
jaslindevaece@gmail.com
Abstract— ZigBee network can be configured as three main
topologies such as star, tree or mesh topology. The main
objective is to have low power consumption and high channel
utilization, impact of MAC parameters such as beacon order
(BO) and super frame order (SO) for star, tree and mesh
topology in beacon disable mode and beacon enable mode by
varying CBR traffic loads. The reactive protocol such as
AODV (Adhoc on- Demand Routing) and DSR (Dynamic
Source Routing) comparison analysis on each topology are
made to configure the performance of protocol routing
schemes on the basis of performance parameters metrics such
as Average jitter, Average end-to-end delay and throughput.
Further the energy model comparison analysis for ZigBee
Wireless Sensor Network (WSN) on Energy Consumption in
transmit mode, receive mode, and idle mode are analyzed.
Keywords – Wireless Sensor Networks (WSNs), Medium Access
Control (MAC) layer, Beacon order (BO), Super frame order
(SO) and Qualnet 5.0.2 simulator
I.INTRODUCTION
ZigBee is a sensor network that suite of high level
communication protocols using low range, low-power
digital radios based on the standard of IEEE 802.15.4 for
Wireless Personal Area Networks (WPANs). IEEE 802.15.4
is a standard originally designed for short range
communication that provides lower data rate in Kilobits per
second (Kbps). ZigBee Wireless Sensor Network (WSN) is
developed on the network and application layer in IEEE
802.15.4 standard. The characteristics of MAC layer deals
with the beacon enable and beacon disable mode by varying
the Beacon Order (BO) and Superframe Order (SO)
parameters for the channel utilization improvement. The
formation of WSN topologies depends upon the nodes
composition, which transmit data to a sink or server node
through point to point links or direct link. [1].The three
possible topologies such as Star, Mesh and Tree topologies
variation depends upon number of hop count [2]. Routing is
an extremely challenging task for constrained battery-
powered resource in WSN, since it is main cause for
depletion in energy and energy must be utilized to enhance
lifetime for sensor [5]. Energy saving is the main factor for
sensor networks, because it has limited energy storage [6].
WSNs, nodes are powered by limited capacity of batteries
978-1-5090-4556-3/16/$31.00 ©2016 IEEE
Dr.K.Sumathi
Assistant Professor (SG), Dept. of ECE
Dr.Mahalingam College of Engineering & Technology
Coimbatore, India
sumathimin@gmail.com
and densely deployed in any geographical region to perform
sensing. So that energy efficient operation is always desired
in WSNs. The energy model in physical layer varies for
various routing protocol [7]. The WSN consists of few
nodes to several hundred nodes, where each node in the
network is connected to one or more sensors. The topology
of the WSNs can vary from a simple star network or
topology to an advanced multi-hop distance wireless mesh
network. The technique of propagation between the hops
communication of the network can be routing or flooding
[8]. The existing energy models analysis of energy
consumption of Wireless Sensor Network (WSN) based
upon two main energy models such as MICA MOTES and
MICAZ preferred in Wireless Sensor Network [9]. A
ZigBee sensor network model is applicable for capacity of
battery, efficient bandwidth usage, and computing limitation
for WSN [11]. The physical layer offers three operational
frequency bands; it consists of 27 channels allocated in the
802.15.4 standard range, with 16 channels in the 2.4 GHz
band, 10 channels in the 915 MHz band, and 1 channel in
868 MHz band [12]. The IEEE 802.15.4/ZigBee wireless
communication standard is more advantageous than other
wireless communication standards with following
parameters like battery usage and low power consumption
[13]. Sensors use a modern communication technology,
such as ZigBee, to send patients information’ health status
parameters to the central monitor [14]. It has wide
application area such as networking in home and industrial
field and having different profiles specified for each field.
The rest of the paper is organized as follows. Chapter II
addresses the Overview of IEEE 802.15.4 MAC layer. In
chapter III deals with ZigBee network topologies. Chapter
IV dealt with routing protocol classifications. Simulation
and results are dealt in Chapter V. Conclusions are given in
Chapter VI.
II. OVERVIEW OF IEEE 802.15.4 MAC LAYER
The MAC sublayer of 802.15.4 defines the medium
access by devices participating in a WPAN. The ZigBee
MAC layer employs the channel access mechanism using
CSMA-CA algorithm and provides secure message
 2016 Online International Conference on Green Engineering and Technologies (IC-GET)
transmission over single hop communication, device type
(FFD & RFD), Poll interval, Superframe Order (SO) and
Beacon Order (BO). The IEEE 802.15.4 supports MAC
layer physical devices such as Full-Function Device (FFD)
and Reduced-Function Device (RFD). The IEEE 802.15.4
MAC layer mechanism is based on CSMA/CA protocol. It
supports two modes of operation Beacon enabled and
Beaconless-enabled mode.
A. Beacon enabled mode
A central PAN coordinator can determine whether to
work in a beacon enabled mode, in which a superframe
structure is defined. It is bounded by beacons frames and
divided into time slots of equal size. The default time slots
are 16. A coordinator periodically sends out beacon frames
to synchronize the attached devices The Superframe consists
of active and inactive periods shown in Fig 1.
Fig .1.Superframe structure of IEEE 802.15.4
Active period is further divided into two periods
namely Contention Access Period (CAP) and Contention
Free Period (CFP).The CSMA/CA algorithm must be used
by a device to communicate during CAP. Guaranteed Time
Slot (GTS) mechanism is used by CFP. The coordinator
does not interact with the network during the inactive period
and goes to power saving mode. The parameters Beacon
Interval (BI) and the Super frame Duration (SD) are
determined by two parameters such as the Beacon Order
(BO) and the Super frame Order (SO). The SO and BO
should satisfy the relationship 0 ≤ SO ≤ BO ≤ 14 for beacon
enable mode.
B. Non-beacon enabled mode
In beacon enabled mode, it uses unslotted CSMA/CA
and does not provide synchronization and guarantee time to
RFDs devices which send their data to sink node or server
node. A node can transmit and sleep at any time to save its
own energy consumption policy. To disable it must satisfy
this relation SO = BO = 15.
III. ROUTING PROTOCOLS CLASSIFICATION
There are many protocols routing algorithm used for
WSNs. They are classified as Table-Driven or proactive
protocols, On-Demand or reactive protocol and hybrid
protocol.
A. Proactive protocol
The node in the network maintains one or more tables
to store the information of routing, and they respond to
changes in topology in order to maintain a consistent
network view. Examples are Destination Sequenced
Distance Vector Routing (DSDV) and Source Tree Adaptive
Routing (STAR).
B. Reactive protocol
It creates only when desired by source node. This node
initiates route discovery process followed by route
maintenance procedure once when a route is found. Control
overhead is reduced by On-Demand routing protocols, thus
conserving power and increasing bandwidth at the mobile
stations. Examples are AODV (Adhoc on Demand Vector
routing protocol) and DSR (Dynamic Source Routing).
C. Hybrid protocol
Hybrid approach is the combination of both reactive
and proactive protocol. ZRP (Zone Routing Protocol) and
TORA (Temporally Ordered Routing Algorithm) are the
examples
IV. ZIGBEE NETWORK TOPOLOGY
A ZigBee network can adopt three types of network
topology: Star, Mesh and Tree topology.
A. Star network
The star topology of a central PAN coordinator and
several end devices such as RFDs and FFDs are connected
to central PAN. The exchange of packets between end
devices must go through the coordinator. The disadvantage
of star topology is the operation of the network depends
only on the PAN coordinator of the network, and if the PAN
gets fails the network performance terminated. The
advantage of star topology is that it is simple and packets go
through at most two hops distance to reach their destination.
B. Tree network
A Tree network has a top node which is the sink node
with a branch/leaf structure below. The PAN Coordinator is
the top (root) node in the network. This can continue to a
number of levels to reach its destination, a message travels
up the tree or down the tree.
C. Mesh network
Mesh topology, also called as a peer-to-peer network,
consists of one central coordinator, several routers of FFDs,
and end devices of FFDs and RFDs. It is a multi-hop
network where the packets passes through multiple hops
distance to reach their destination. The network range can
be increased by adding more devices to the network. Mesh
routing uses a more complex routing protocol than a star
topology.
V. SIMULATION AND RESULTS
The star,tree and mesh topology is considered with 15
nodes. The simulation is performed with the following
parameters mentioned in Table I.
 2016 Online International Conference on Green Engineering and Technologies (IC-GET)

TABLE I
SIMULATION PARAMETERS
Parameters Values
Area 500m*500m
Simulation Time 300sec
Item to send 100
Packet size 60bytes
Packet rate (packet per sec) 0.1.0.2,1,2
MAC layer 802.15.4
Energy Model Mica motes, Micaz, Generic Fig.4.Mesh topology
Battery Model Linear model A. Average jitter
Protocol AODV,DSR Average jitter versus data rate packet interval is shown
BO,SO 3,15 in Fig 5, Fig 6 and in Fig 7 for Star, Tree and Mesh
No of nodes 15 network. In star network for beacon disable mode when the
Traffic CBR order is 15, it shows the jitter value for all packet intervals is
low compared to beacon enable mode when the order is 3. It
In star topology , the nodes such as FFDs and is due to the communication of single-hop distance for star
RFDs are connected to the central PAN coordinator node 1 network.
as shown in Fig 2. In tree as shown in Fig 3, the nodes are
connected in upward or uplink direction to PAN coordinator
node 1 through FFDs devices of node 2 and 3 which act as
routers and RFDs of node 4 and 5 whereas the rest of the
nodes are same nuumber of FFDs and RFDs. and in mesh
topology as shown in Fig 4 ,the similar setup is made as
like tree topology but the coordinator devices such as FFDs
of node 2 and 3 are point-to-point or peer-to-peer connected
as shown in Fig to form mesh connection. The simulation is
carried out by varying SO and BO order. First the
simulation is carried out by setting the order SO = BO =3
called as beacon enable mode and by setting the order SO =
BO = 15 called as beacon disable mode. The average jitter,
average end to end delay and throughput is calculated and
Fig.5.Star network
compared for the order 3 and 15.
In tree network, the jitter value is randomly
increasing and decreasing and in mesh networks its shows
the jitter value for all packet intervals is high due to the
multi-hop distance communication. The routing protocol
comparision for three topology shown in Fig 8. It shows
AODV performs better and has low jitter when compared to
DSR routing protocol for star, mesh and tree topologies.

Fig.2.Star topology

Fig.3.Tree topology
Fig .6.Tree network
 2016 Online International Conference on Green Engineering and Technologies (IC-GET)
Fig.7.Mesh network
Fig.8.Protocol comparison of average jitter
B. Average end to end delay
Average end to end delay versus data rate packet
interval is shown in Fig 9, Fig 10 and in Fig 11 for Star,
Tree and Mesh network.
Fig.9.Star network
In star for beacon disable mode, it shows the delay
for all packet intervals is low when compared to beacon
enable mode. But in case of tree and mesh network it shows
high delay for all packet intervals for beacon disable mode.
Though the higher delay may due to multi-hop
communication in both tree and mesh network. The routing
protocol comparision for three topology shown in Fig 12. It
shows AODV performs better and has lower delay when
compared to DSR routing protocol for star, mesh and tree.
Fig.10.Tree network
Fig.11.Mesh network
Fig.12.Protocol comparison of average end to end delay
C. Throughput
Throughput versus data rate packet interval is shown in
Fig 13, Fig 14 and in Fig 15 for Star, Tree and Mesh
network. In star, tree and mesh network for beacon disable
mode, it shows higher throughput when compared to beacon
enable mode. The beacon frame collision absence is the
reason of obtaining higher throughput in all three networks.
The higher throughput results in better performance of the
network. The routing protocol comparision for three
topology shown in Fig 16.It shows AODV performs better
and has high throughput when compared to DSR routing
protocol for star, mesh and tree topologies.
 2016 Online International Conference on Green Engineering and Technologies (IC-GET)

D. Energy consumption in transmit and receive mode

The energy consumption in transmit mode and receive
mode versus packet interval is shown in Fig 17 and Fig 18
for order 3 (Beacon enable mode) and 15 (Beacon disable
mode). Its shows low energy consumption in all data rate
per packet interval for star, tree and mesh network for
beacon disable mode.

Fig.13. Star network

Fig.17.Transmit mode

Fig.14. Tree network

Fig.19. Receive mode

E. Energy model comparison

The energy model such as mica-mote, micaz and

generic analysis are made for protocols such as AODV,
Fig.15. Mesh network
DSR and ZRP. The mica-mote shows less energy
consumption in transmit, receive and idle mode for all
protocols shown in Fig 19, 20, 21 for all protocols.

Fig.16.Protocol comparison of throughput

Fig.19. Energy model comparison in Transmit mode
 2016 Online International Conference on Green Engineering and Technologies (IC-GET)
Fig.20. Energy model comparison in Receive mode
Fig.21. Energy model comparison in Idle mode
VI. CONCLUSION
The results shows the MAC parameters impact based
on the performance of Beacon order (BO) and super frame
order (SO) on IEEE 802.15.4 for star, tree and mesh
network for the improvement channel utilization and low
power consumption. Performance metrics have been
analyzed with different CBR traffic loads for ad-hoc on
demand distance vector routing protocol. Beacon disable
mode performance is better compared with non-beacon
mode for all topologies. It shows that the beacon disable
mode performs better in star, tree and meshes topologies
and has low energy consumption. The reactive protocol
routing such as AODV and DSR comparison are analyzed
for star, tree and mesh. The AODV performs better in all
performance metrics when compared to DSR and energy
model such as mica-mote, micaz and generic comparison for
both protocols shows lower energy consumption in case of
mica-mote. In future, the analysis will be made for
combination of two topologies and comparative analysis
will be made in beacon enable and beacon disable mode.
REFERENCES
[1] Burratti, “Performance analysis of IEEE 802.15.4 non-
beacon enabled mode,” IEEE transactions on Vehicular
Technology, Vol. 58, No. 7, pp. 3480-3493,2009.
[2] Hubhanshi Rathore, Rajeev Paulus A.K. and Jaiswa,
“Analysis of QOS and Energy Consumption in IEEE
802.15.4/ZigBee Wireless Sensor Network,”
International Journal of Computer Applications, Vol.121,
No.17, 2015.
[3] Yuan Y, chung W.H., Cheng P and Pang A, “Performance
Analysis of Topological Variation in Personal Area
Network using ZigBee Wireless Sensors,” in International
Journal of Computer Science and Technology,Vol.3, Issue
4,2012.
[4] Chandane M., Bhirud S.G, Bonde S.V, “Performance
Analysis of IEEE 802.15.4,” in International Journal of
Computer Applications, Vol. 40, No.5, 2012.
[5] Dr. Seema Verma and Prachi., “Simulation Based Routing
Protocols Evaluation for IEEE 802.15.4 enabled Wireless
Sensor Networks,” in ACEEE Int. J. on Network Security,
2011.
[6] PratibhaKevre and Laxmi Shrivastava, “Compare Three
Reactive Routing Protocols In Grid Based Cluster wireless
Sensor Network Using Qualnet Simulator,” in Journal of
Information Engineering and Applications Vol.4, No. 4,
2014.
[7] Sarvesh Kumar Singh, Rajeev Paulus, A.K. Jaiswal and
Mayur Kumar, “Analysis of energy model and
Performance of IEEE 802.15.4 WSNs under Different Duty
Cycle,” in IOSR Journal of Electronics and
Communication Engineering (IOSR-JECE), Vol. 9, Issue
2,pp. 48-54,2014.
[8] Mrs. A. Narmada and Dr. P. Sudhakara Rao, “Performance
Comparison Of Routing Protocols For ZigBee Wpan,” in
IJCSI International Journal of Computer Science , Vol. 8,
Issue 6, No 2,pp 392-402, 2011.
[9] Anshul Shrotriya, Dhiraj Nitnawwre, Jaswinder Kaur and
GurjeevanSingh, “Energy Efficient Modeling of Wireless
Sensor Networks Based on Different Modulation Schemes
Using QualNet,” in International Journal of Scientific
Engineering and Technology, Vol.1, No.3, pp.171-174 ,
2012.
[10] Muneer Bani Yassein, Mohammad Hamdan,Hisham and
LinaMrayan, “Performance Analysis of LAR and DYMO
Protocol in GTS Mechanism Enabled IEEE 802.15.4 Based
Wireless Sensor Networks,” in International Journal of
Advanced Research in Computer Science & Technology
(IJARCST), Vol.2, Issue 2, 2014.
[11] KaoutarPr.Moughit Mohammed and Pr.Nasserdine
Bouchaib, “ZigBee Routing Opnet Simulation for a
Wireless Sensors Network,” in International Journal of
Advanced Computer Science and Applications Vol. 5, No.
12, 2014.
[12] Sandeep Kaur, Harinderpal Singh and Gurjeevan Singh,
“Examine the Performance of different Topologies using
Opnet 14.5 in ZigBee Sensor Network,” in International
Journal of Computer Applications Vol.108 – No. 7,
December 2014.
[13] Sercan, Ebubekir, “Design and Simulation of Wireless
Sensor Network Topologies Using the ZigBee Standard,”
in International Journal of Computer Networks and
Applications (IJCNA) ,Vol.2, Issue 3, 2015.
[14] Muneer Bani Yassein, Mohammad Hamdan, Hisham
Shehadeh1 and Lina Mrayan, “An Improvement on Health
Monitoring System for Multiple Patients Using Wireless
Sensor Network,” in MAGNT Research Report Vol.3,pp
.1-15, 2015.
in