http://www.cs.berkeley.edu/~culler/AIIT/papers/radio/Cook%20IEEE%20Proc%202006.pdf
SoC Issues for RF Smart Dust
Wireless sensor nodes, each a self-powered system performing sensing,
communication, and computation, form reliable mesh networks
coordinating efforts to add intelligence to the environment.
By Ben W. Cook, Student Member IEEE, Steven Lanzisera, Student Member IEEE, and
Kristofer S. J. Pister
ABSTRACT | Wireless sensor nodes are autonomous devices
incorporating sensing, power, computation, and communication
into one system. Applications for large scale networks of
these nodes are presented in the context of their impact on the
hardware design. The demand for low unit cost and multiyear
lifetimes, combined with progress in CMOS and MEMS processing,
are driving development of SoC solutions for sensor nodes
at the cubic centimeter scale with a minimum number of offchip
components. Here, the feasibility of a complete, cubic
millimeter scale, single-chip sensor node is explored by
examining practical limits on process integration and energetic
cost of short-range RF communication. Autonomous cubic
millimeter nodes appear within reach, but process complexity
and substantial sacrifices in performance involved with a true
single-chip solution establish a tradeoff between integration
and assembly.
KEYWORDS | Low-power circuits; low-power RF; Smart Dust;
wireless mesh networks; wireless sensor networks; wireless
sensors
I.
INTRODUCTION AND HISTORY
The term BSmart Dust[ has come to be used to describe a
wide range of wireless sensor network hardware at a small
scale down to a handful of cubic millimeters [1]. Each
wireless sensor node, or Bmote,[ contains one or more
sensors, hardware for computation and communication,
and a power supply (Fig. 1). Motes are assumed to be
autonomous, programmable, and able to participate in
multihop mesh communication.
The genesis of Smart Dust was a workshop at RAND in
1992 in which a group of academics, military personnel,
and futurists were chartered to explore how technology
revolutions would change the battlefield of 2025 [2]. By
this time it was clear that MEMS technology was going to
revolutionize low-cost, low-power sensing. Moore’s law
was accurately predicting CMOS digital circuit performance
improvements with no end in sight, and the
wireless communication revolution, already firmly established
in two-way pagers, was beginning to make its way
into handheld cellphones. The confluence of these three
technological revolutions in sensing, computation, and
wireless communication placed the major sensor mote
functions on asymptotic curves down to zero size, power,
and cost over time. Furthermore, the potential for
cointegration of CMOS and MEMS made single-chip
sensors with integrated signal conditioning possible at low
cost [3]–[11].
In 1996, the term BSmart Dust[ was coined to describe
the ultimate impact of scaling and process integration on
the size of an autonomous wireless sensor [12]. Several
DARPA-sponsored workshops in the mid-1990s fleshed
out some of the implementation and application details of
the 1992 vision, and key research proposals were written
and funded at the University of California, Los Angeles
(UCLA); the University of California, Berkeley; and the
University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. It was clear to the
community at that time that low-cost ubiquitous wireless
sensor networks would have a revolutionary impact on
military conflict. What was not as clearly anticipated was
the potential impact on commercial and industrial
applications.
The first wireless sensor motes, called COTS
(commercial-off-the-shelf) Dust, were built early in the
Smart Dust project using printed circuit boards and offthe-shelf
components. It was shown that these inch-scale
devices could perform many of the functions predicted in
the 1992 workshop, including multihop message passing
and mote localization [13]. COTS dust and other macroscale
motes were developed to explore sensor network
software and individual mote architecture as well as deploy
small scale networks [14]–[16].
Manuscript received August 24, 2005; revised February 21, 2006.
The authors are with the University of California, Berkeley, CA 94720-1774 USA (e-mail:
cookbw@eecs.berkeley.edu; slanzise@eecs.berkeley.edu; pister@eecs.berkeley.edu).
Digital Object Identifier: 10.1109/JPROC.2006.873620
0018-9219/$20.00 2006 IEEE Vol. 94, No. 6, June 2006 | Proceedings of the IEEE 1177
While great strides were made in miniaturization and
power reduction of the hardware, perhaps the most important
event during this early period was the observation
that networks of autonomous sensor motes represented a
ubiquitous, embedded computing platform [17]–[20], and
they needed a new operating system to match. Proposed in
the Endeavour project [21], the TinyOS operating system
[22] was developed under DARPA funding and put into
the public domain, along with all of the COTS Dust
hardware designs, and a thriving open-source sensor networking
community was born.
Meanwhile, in 1999 the IEEE formed the 802 working
group 15, with a charter to develop standards for wireless
personal area networking (WPAN), from which the lowrate
WPAN 802.15.4 standard emerged. The 802.15.4
standard was designed from the beginning to be a lowpower,
low-complexity solution for sensor networking in
industrial, automotive, and agricultural applications [23].
A spinoff group from the industrial consortium HomeRF,
focused on home automation applications, created the
Zigbee standard in 2004. Zigbee 1.0 [24] is based on
the 802.15.4 standard radio [25]. With the blessings of
the IEEE on a radio standard, a consortium of large
companies defining applications, and the help of the
venture capital community, a new industry was born.
II. DEVELOPMENTS IN SENSOR
MOTE HARDWARE
The Mica mote (Fig. 2), the most popular mote used in
research, was developed to mimic the expected architecture
of a highly integrated mote while using off-the-shelf parts
mounted on a common PC board to reduce development
time. This mote includes a microcontroller, RF transceiver,
and the ability to interface to a variety of sensors. The
mote is powered by a pair of AA batteries, and these take
up the majority of the unit’s volume [14]. Similar inchscale
motes utilizing primarily off-the-shelf components
are now commercially available from numerous sources
[26]–[30].
Development of highly integrated sensor mote components
started in the mid-1990s and resulted in multichip
systems that could be assembled to create a mote. At
UCLA, MEMS devices were combined with commercial
CMOS chips that provided sensor control and readout as
well as communication [31]. At the University of
Michigan, Ann Arbor, a 10 000-mm3 device containing
sensors, computation, and RF communication using multiple
chips in a single package was developed and demonstrated
[32]. Other wireless sensor multichip units or
components have been demonstrated for a variety of industrial,
commercial, and defense applications [33]–[42].
Fig. 1. Basic block diagram of a wireless sensor node. A complete node will consist of many blocks, most of which can be integrated onto
a single standard CMOS die (blocks inside gray box). Energy storage (batteries, large capacitors, or inductors), energy scavenging, and some
sensors will likely be off-chip components. The primary integrated blocks include a sensor interface, memory, computation, power management,
and an RF transceiver.
Cook et al.: SoC Issues for RF Smart Dust
1178 Proceedings of the IEEE | Vol. 94, No. 6, June 2006
To minimize energy, passive optical communication
was explored for early Smart Dust motes. The smallest
optical mote to date (Fig. 3.) displaced only 4 mm3 and
contained an 8-bit ADC, an optical receiver, a corner cube
reflector passive optical transmitter, a light sensor, an
accelerometer, a multivoltage solar cell power source, and
limited computation [43]. A newer generation sensor
mote, called the Spec mote, contained a microprocessor,
SRAM, an RF transmitter, and an 8-bit ADC integrated
onto a single CMOS die [41]. More recently, highly
integrated chips with a complete RF transceiver, microprocessor,
ADC, and sensor interface have been reported
[44], and even commercialized [45]. Even these highly
integrated chips still require an off-chip battery, some
passive components, a crystal timing element, and an RF
antenna, resulting in a complete package at the centimeter
to inch scale.
III. WIRELESS SENSOR NETWORK
APPLICATIONS
Today’s sensor networks rely on a wired infrastructure to
provide power and transfer data. The high cost of running
wire for power and communication often dramatically
exceeds the cost of the sensors themselves, slowing the
adoption of sensor networks for all but the most critical
applications. By drastically reducing installation costs,
reliable low-cost wireless mesh networking places sensor
networks on the same technology curves as the rest of the
IT revolution.
Wireless connectivity for sensors has been an attractive
option for years, but, due to problems with reliability,
adoption has been limited to applications where occasional
loss of connectivity and data is acceptable. The current
revolution in wireless sensing is being driven by the
dramatic improvement in reliability and lifetime possible
with wireless mesh networking. This is an echo of the
Internet revolution, where point-to-point wired communications
were replaced by multihop wired communication.
The insensitivity of the Internet mesh to the loss of a
path or a node is a key part of what makes the Internet
reliable. The same concept applied to wireless sensor
networks improves reliability.
In commercial and consumer applications, motes can
be used to eliminate the wiring cost for light switches,
thermostats, and fire alarms. Fig. 4 illustrates the wireless
routing mesh blueprint from an actual sensor network
deployment. In this application, motes were installed
throughout a health clinic in just 2 h to implement a
low-cost air temperature and energy consumption monitoring
system with a simple Web browser based control
interface [46].
In applications such as inventory monitoring, motes
will not be fixed in space. A primary concern of the network
will be determining the location of motes on boxes or
pallets on demand and this requires location discovery
capability to be built into the network [47].
In some entertainment applications inertial sensing
motes may be worn by humans to detect and interpret
movements as communication gestures or control signals
[48]–[52]. Similarly, wearable motes have been used to
interpret human motion as musical gestures, allowing
users to create music interactively in real time [53]. In
these systems the latency requirements are more stringent
than in typical monitoring scenarios and, since humans
will be wearing the sensor mote, a small form factor is
important.
Defense applications drove much of the initial
research in sensor networks. The Igloo White system
was a wired sensor network employed from 1966 to 1972
along the Ho Chi Minh trail during the Vietnam War. In a
more modern military application, wireless sensors were
distributed throughout a mock urban battlefield to
pinpoint a sniper’s location by acoustically detecting the
arrival time of the muzzle blast at several different points
in the field [54]. Sensor networks have also been
proposed for position tracking and identification of
people and fast-moving vehicles in both civilian and
military scenarios [55].
IV. APPLICATION REQUIREMENTS AND
HARDWARE IMPLICATIONS
Applications for wireless sensor networks can be broken
down into two categories: wire replacement and wirelessly
enabled. In the former case, the cost of hardware for a
wireless solution is generally dramatically lower than the
comparable cost of running wiring. Once secure, reliable,
low-power solutions are demonstrated in this domain,
adoption is limited by caution, rather than cost. Wirelessly
Fig. 2. The Mica mote combines sensing, power, computation, and
communication into one package using off-the-shelf components.
Cook et al.: SoC Issues for RF Smart Dust
Vol. 94, No. 6, June 2006 | Proceedings of the IEEE 1179
enabled applications, on the other hand, may require
novel technologies such as dynamic mote localization.
A. Reliable Data Delivery
Reliability in a multihop RF mesh sensor network can
be defined in terms of end-to-end delivery of timestamped
sensor data with a specified worst case latency.
Time stamping requires some form of network synchronization,
but the primary hardware impact of the
reliability requirement is on the choice of radio and the
use of spectrum. The majority of motes will operate in
regulated but unlicensed bands, such as 902–928 MHz in
North America, and 2.4–2.485 GHz throughout most of
the world. Because these bands are open to transmitters
putting out as much as 1 W, and motes are likely to have
an output on the order of 1 mW to extend battery life, it
is critical that motes be able to avoid high-power
interferers to maintain adequate reliability. For example,
even the spreading gain of the direct sequence spread
spectrum 802.15.4 radio will not prevent an 802.11 transmitter
from jamming several channels over distances of
tens of meters [56]. Multipath propagation effects indoors
cause similar problems for reliability, with time-varying
Fig. 3. Conceptual drawing and SEM of the optical Smart Dust node presented in [43]. This multichip node displaced only 4 mm3 and featured a
solar cell power source, temperature, light and acceleration sensors, an 8-bit ADC, and bidirectional optical communication.
Cook et al.: SoC Issues for RF Smart Dust
1180 Proceedings of the IEEE | Vol. 94, No. 6, June 2006
narrowband fading of many tens of dB commonly
observed [57].
High-powered interferers and unpredictable fading
preclude the use of fixed-frequency radios in highreliability
applications. Reliable solutions will have the
ability to avoid or work around those parts of the spectrum
which are jammed or deeply faded. For relatively
narrowband radios like 802.15.4, this implies some form
of channel hopping at the medium access layer in addition
to the direct sequence spreading defined in the physical
layer of the radio.
B. Low-Power Consumption
From a system deployment perspective, mote lifetimes
measured in years are required for most applications in
building and industrial automation. Operation from
batteries and/or scavenged power is required. To avoid
high battery replacement costs, this dictates a battery
lifetime of between one and ten years. An AA-sized
battery contains roughly 250 A-years of charge or about
12 000 J. For some lithium chemistries, the internal
leakage is low enough that supplying this charge as a
current of 25 A for a decade is possible while common
alkaline chemistries have shorter lifetimes. The average
power consumption of an inch-scale mote, then, must be
in the range of tens to hundreds of microwatts or just a
few joules per day.
Achieving a total current consumption of tens of
microamps requires deep duty cycling, on the order of 1%
or less with off-the-shelf hardware [58]–[60]. Deep duty
cycling implies that the hardware should be able to quickly
transition between the powered state and the unpowered
(and low leakage) state. At very low duty cycles, leakage
power in the digital circuits, predominantly the SRAM,
can dominate the system energy budget. Though the power
required for active digital circuits is scaling down with
minimum feature size of standard CMOS, leakage power is
growing. Leakage power sets a lower bound on average
power consumption of sensor motes and is a major obstacle
to the scaling of digital circuits. In 130-nm bulk CMOS, for
example, leakage is on the order of 1 W per kilobyte with
a standard 6T SRAM [61]. Silicon-on-insulator (SOI) is a
CMOS device technology offering substantial leakage
reduction that has yet to be adopted into mainstream
commercial use [62].
In addition to leakage issues, multihop mesh networking
with radio communication in a deeply duty cycled
environment presents major challenges to algorithm and
software developers. Turning the radio off 99% of the time
is easy, but knowing exactly when to turn it on again is not.
Hardware support for some combination of mote-to-mote
time synchronization, fast radio polling, or low-power
detection of RF energy is desirable.
Custom-designed circuits leveraging the relaxed performance
specifications unique to sensor network
Fig. 4. Deployment of a wireless sensor network in a health clinic. The network monitors air temperature and energy consumption and has a
convenient central control interface [46].
Cook et al.: SoC Issues for RF Smart Dust
Vol. 94, No. 6, June 2006 | Proceedings of the IEEE 1181
applications have been developed to drastically extend
sensor mote lifetimes and/or reduce cost and size by
minimizing energy consumption [63]–[66]. Fig. 5 provides
a comparison of the energy consumption per
operation of published custom ICs and off-the-shelf parts.
In both commercial and custom solutions, the energetic
cost of RF communication dwarfs that of other sensor node
operations, making RF a bottleneck for size, cost, and
lifetime improvements. In Section VI, the energy requirements
of RF communication are explored and a systemlevel
optimization of energy per transferred bit of a generic
transceiver is performed.
Unfortunately, the custom ICs presented in Fig. 5
operate optimally at different supply voltages and were not
developed in the same CMOS process. Integration of these
devices would require redesign in one process and efficient
dc level conversion from a battery [67]. Ideally, the
hardware would operate efficiently with the lithium cell
potential and deep duty cycling. Since lithium chemistries
generally provide over 3-V cell potential, this presents a
challenge for integration in deep submicrometer CMOS,
where normal supply voltages are half of the lithium
potential or less. The computational requirements of a
mote are generally consistent with MHz rather than GHz
operation, allowing digital circuits to run as low as 0.5 V or
less. Efficient dc to dc conversion from a constant 3 V
supply to a duty cycled 0.5–1.8 V output will allow future
systems-on-chip to achieve battery-referenced energy
efficiencies similar to those shown in Fig. 5.
C. Security
Security in sensor networks shares many of the same
problems as IT security in general, with the beneficial
exception that fewer humans are involved. As sensor
networks come to be used in commercial, industrial, and
defense applications, their security requirements will
likely be just as stringent as those required of the
information systems they feed [68]–[71]. Security requirements
include access control, data encryption, message
authentication, key exchange, and certification of trust.
Link-level encryption and message authentication can
be performed in software, but these low-level, time
critical, and computationally intensive operations are a
natural target for silicon support. The hardware for the
Advanced Encryption Standard (AES) [72] is already
incorporated in chips which support the 802.15.4 standard
[60], [73].
For key exchange and certification, software implementations
of the public key algorithms RSA and ECC have
been demonstrated on 8- and 16-bit processors common in
sensor network applications [74], [75]. Execution times are
on the order of seconds to tens of seconds, and the memory
requirements are substantial for a mote. The addition of
integer multiplication units with large operand size will
speed execution and reduce memory requirements roughly
as the square of the operand size.
D. Location Discovery
As the cost of motes falls and the number of wireless
sensors increases, the cost of locating installed sensors
will drive the development of automatic location discovery.
This capability is critical for asset tracking applications
and for many of the Bsprinkle deployment[ military
and environmental monitoring applications envisioned for
the technology. Furthermore, many applications require
mobile motes with the ability to dynamically update
position information [76]. Asset management and other
tracking applications may require an accuracy of 1 m to
find a person, laptop, or record file in an office building or
hospital, several meters to find a crate in a warehouse, or
many tens of meters to find a cargo container in a
shipping yard.
Acoustic localization systems with good performance
have been implemented [77], but the physics of acoustic
Fig. 5. Energetic costs of common sensor node operations based on commercially available hardware and lowest energy published solutions.
Cook et al.: SoC Issues for RF Smart Dust
1182 Proceedings of the IEEE | Vol. 94, No. 6, June 2006
propagation constrain the domain of application of these
systems. GPS may be very useful for localizing parts of a
sensor network, but in general motes will not have the
satellite visibility necessary for these systems, even if the
power requirements could be met. One solution is a
pairwise range sensor coupled with either centralized or
distributed computation of position based on the sparse
pairwise data [78], [79]. Measurement of received RF
signal strength has been proposed as a surrogate for a range
sensor, but multipath fading makes this technique
unsuitable for most applications [76], [80]. Localization
based on RF time-of-flight (TOF) between motes is
currently being investigated as a more accurate solution
[81]. Multipath propagation of radio waves and clock drift
between motes are the primary contributors to error in RF
TOF systems, and these problems must be addressed and
mitigated in a reasonable system.
V. SYSTEM INTEGRATION: FEASIBILITY
OF A SINGLE-CHIP SENSOR MOTE
The mock-up device at the bottom of Fig. 13 below
represents a hypothetical 2-mm3 mote-on-a-chip combining
cutting-edge process integration and circuit techniques.
In reality, the most integrated mote-on-a-chip
systems today still require several off-chip components.
Given recent advances in process integration, this section
explores the possibility of integrating each system block
on-chip to create a cubic millimeter scale complete
sensor mote.
A. Cointegration of Digital, Analog, and RF
Any sensitive analog circuits must be isolated from
the noise-generating digital devices of the DSP and
microprocessor. Integration of both devices is commonplace
today as process features and design techniques
have been developed to isolate digital circuits from
analog [82], [83].
Many circuits typically found in an RF transceiver
require elements not needed for digital or low-frequency
analog operation, such as inductors and high-density
capacitors with low series resistance. Thus, RF circuits
have historically required several off-chip components.
Only recently have IC manufacturers added process
features targeted at enabling integration of RF circuits.
Currently, several manufacturers offer high density
capacitors and thick top metal layers for inductors. Due
to these process advancements, modern RF transceivers
are approaching complete integration [84].
Even with integrated RF passive components, there are
still a few elements impeding complete integration of RF
transceivers, namely the antenna and timing reference.
The antenna is difficult to integrate because its optimal
dimensions are on the same order as the wavelength of the
RF signal, making antennas in the low-GHz range ill-suited
to integration. The optimal dimensions can be scaled down
by increasing frequency and making the antenna resonate,
leading many to investigate integrated resonant antennas
at and above 10 GHz [85]–[87]. Even at appropriately high
frequencies, integrated antennas have thus far only
demonstrated low efficiencies. Furthermore, propagation
losses are generally worse at higher frequency. As a result,
an integrated antenna will incur a substantial power
penalty with current technology.
If a modest size increase and some assembly are
acceptable, commercially available miniaturized antennas
may provide the best combination of cost-effectiveness,
size, and efficiency. Efficient dielectric chip antennas
displacing only about 10 mm3 are commercially available
for use at low-GHz frequencies from a variety of sources
[88], [89]. However, as designed, these chip antennas
require sizable ground planes for good performance.
The timing reference is another element of RF transceivers
not amenable to integration. RF transceivers typically
use a resonant quartz crystal to synthesize high
frequency signals needed for transmission and reception.
The geometry of crystal references is precisely controlled
to create a mechanical resonance that is stable across a
wide temperature band. There are no conventional circuit
elements that can offer precision comparable to a crystal.
However, MEMS resonators are currently being explored
in industry and academia as a quartz crystal replacement
technology because of their potential for integration and
cost reduction [90]–[93]. Currently, the temperature stability
of MEMS resonators is not as good as quartz crystals,
but temperature compensation may be employed to mitigate
this problem [94]. As this technology matures, MEMS
components may supplant not only the crystal timing
element, but filters, mixers, and RF oscillators as well [95].
B. Sensors
For some applications, the sensors available in a
standard integrated circuit process may be sufficient.
Temperature, magnetic field, and capacitive fingerprint
sensors have all been demonstrated in standard CMOS as
well as megapixel cameras with on-chip image processing
[96]–[100]. Integrated sensing of colored light can also be
done in CMOS using metal grating patterns or variable
depth PN junctions as a color filter [98], [101]. Imaging
arrays are increasingly finding applications in noncamera
applications, such as motion-flow sensing in computer
mice. Imaging of legacy dials, knobs, and lights in industrial
environments combined with local signal processing
at the sensor to transmit only the dial position is a
potentially low-power, low data rate application.
There are a host of miniaturized sensors possible with
MEMS technology: linear and angular rate acceleration,
pressure, chemical, fluid flow, audio microphones, and
more [3], [4], [102]–[105]. While all of these sensors are
also available off-the-shelf, custom designed MEMS
sensors have the distinct advantages of low cost and
size as well as the potential for integration with circuits.
Cook et al.: SoC Issues for RF Smart Dust
Vol. 94, No. 6, June 2006 | Proceedings of the IEEE 1183
Many methods of integrating MEMS devices with circuits
have been demonstrated. One popular method is to
etch away materials from commercially manufactured
integrated circuit wafers to create mechanically free
structures. The features of the resulting structures are
defined using existing layers in the CMOS to selectively
block etching. In [3], [4], [8], and [11], an electrochemical
etching technique was applied to standard CMOS
wafers after fabrication to create cantilevered beams and
membranes for chemical, infrared, pressure, and other
types of sensors. Dry etching techniques were applied to
CMOS wafers in [7] and [106], to create inertial sensors
and electrostatic actuators. An advantage of both of these
integration techniques is low cost because no additional
deposition or lithography is necessary after the circuits
are fabricated (see Fig. 6). However, since the MEMS
structures are defined by a stack of dielectrics and metals
designed for CMOS, they may have undesirable mechanical
properties.
The performance of resonant MEMS devices used for
both sensing and RF applications is particularly sensitive
to the mechanical properties of the constituent materials.
Thus, many have investigated other integration methods
that permit the use of mechanically advantageous materials.
Adding thin films of polycrystalline materials to
fabricated CMOS wafers, or surface-micromachining, is a
powerful technique that combines the advantages of integration
with CMOS and high performance resonant
MEMS. Integrated high-Q MEMS resonators and resonant
sensors made from both polycrystalline Silicon
(poly-Si) and silicon–germanium (poly-SiGe) films have
been demonstrated with surface-micromachining techniques
[5], [9], [10]. Unfortunately, the elevated processing
temperatures required for poly-Si (well above 400 C)
are too high for the aluminum metallization typical of
standard CMOS. Thus, integrated poly-Si MEMS must
either be machined into the wafers before metallization
steps [9], [10] or added to fabricated CMOS without
metallization [5]. However, the reduced processing
temperatures of poly-SiGe are much more compatible
with metallization, making postprocessed poly-SiGe a
strong candidate for the future of CMOS-MEMS integration
(see Fig. 6) [6], [104].
C. Scavenging and Storing Energy
Both electrostatic MEMS devices and PZT transducers
have been used to harvest energy from ambient mechanical
vibrations [107]–[110]. It should be possible to
Fig. 6. Demonstration of MEMS-CMOS integration by four different techniques. Top left: electrochemical etching [8] (SEM courtesy of
G.T.A. Kovacs), Top right: deep reactive ion etch(DRIE) of single-crystal silicon bonded to CMOS [11] (SEM courtesy of G.T.A. Kovacs),
bottom left: DRIE of prefabricated CMOS with metal-dielectric structural layers [7] (SEM courtesy R.T. Howe), bottom right: postprocessed
SiGe on CMOS [6] (SEM courtesy G. Fedder).
Cook et al.: SoC Issues for RF Smart Dust
1184 Proceedings of the IEEE | Vol. 94, No. 6, June 2006
integrate these devices, since vibration harvesting may be
performed with simple electrostatic MEMS. The achievable
power density with this method is strongly dependent
on the environment and the design of the transducer.
However, theory predicts a power density of 1.16
W/mm3 is available from a device mounted on the casing
of a constantly operating microwave oven [110].
The most abundant and practical form of ambient
power comes from the sun. In full sunlight, the available
solar power per unit area is roughly 1 mW/mm2 in the
continental United States [111]. Simple silicon-based photovoltaic
cells can convert this to electrical power with up
to 25% efficiency [112]. The processing steps necessary to
create silicon solar cells are quite compatible with
standard IC manufacturing. In fact, the PN junctions
inherent in the silicon of any integrated circuit are
inadvertent solar cells. However, with standard CMOS, it
is not straightforward to utilize these junctions as solar
cells and simultaneously operate transistors on the same
chip due to isolation issues. Integration of multijunction
solar cells and CMOS circuitry has been demonstrated
using silicon-on-insulator wafers with trench isolation
[113]. Miniature, but not integrated, solar cells are
currently available off-the-shelf from a variety of manufacturers.
In particular, silicon-based, flexible, thin-film
solar cells mounted on polymer substrates are now commercially
available in custom sizes on the order of 1 mm2
and up [114].
To sustain reliable operation in the presence of fluctuating
ambient solar or mechanical energy, a sensor mote
must be able to store harvested energy. A promising technology
for integrated energy storage is thin-film batteries.
Work at Oak Ridge National Laboratory on lithium-based
thin-film batteries [115] has led to commercial cells on the
millimeter scale with high capacity and long cycle lives
[116]–[120]. Packaging adds volume without increasing
capacity, resulting in lower energy/volume ratios, but [115]
reported 0.25 mA hr/cm2 at 4 V (or 36 mJ/mm2) in
batteries as small as 5 mm2 and only 15 m thick without
packaging.
Battery discharge rates as high as 40 mW/cm2 are
possible [115], and these cells can be laminated to a
CMOS wafer, eliminating the need for packaging [117].
Cells as small as 50 m 50 m have been demonstrated
using standard lithographic techniques [121]. Other
recent work in thin-film batteries has produced promising
results with lower cell potentials, but the cell capacity and
robustness is far behind solid-state lithium-based batteries
[122], [123].
VI. ENERGY REQUIREMENTS OF
WIRELESS COMMUNICATION
Based on a comparison of published solutions for RF
transceivers and other sensor mote functions, the wireless
communication circuits dominate the system energy budget.
This section explores the energy requirements of wireless
communication and derives approximate energy targets.
As a first step, consider transmitting a single bit from
one sensor mote to another over a distance r, using a carrier
frequency f, and bitrate b. To determine the minimum required
transmission power ðPTX;MINÞ, one must first determine
how the signal power diminishes with distance, and
then determine the minimum detectable signal power in
the receiver ðPMDSÞ. If a maximum communication range
ðrÞ is assumed, then PTX;MIN must be larger than PMDS by a
factor equal to the transmission loss ðLPATHÞ due to
propagation.
A. Transmission Loss Approximations: LPATH
Electromagnetic theory states that the strength of a
transmitted signal is attenuated with increasing distance
according to the Friis equation [124]
LPATH ¼ 4r
2
: (1)
LPATH is the attenuation due to propagation and is the
wavelength at the frequency of interest ( ¼ 30 cm at
f ¼ 1 GHz). The Friis equation applies to free-space, line
of sight propagation and, as such, underestimates path loss
for nonideal conditions. In cluttered environments, path
loss is much more complex. Several sources have utilized a
modification to the Friis equation that roughly approximates
propagation losses in less ideal environments, such
as indoors [80]
LPATH ¼ 4r0
2
r
r0
n
: (2)
In this model, ro is a reference distance (ro ¼ 1 m is
often used) beyond which the inverse square characteristic
of the Friis equation no longer governs propagation
losses because of obstacles and multipath interference.
The exponent n characterizes the attenuation beyond ro
and has been measured for various propagation conditions.
For short-range indoor propagation in the low
GHz range, n ¼ 4 is a common choice for the exponent
[80], [125].
B. Minimum Detectable Signal Power: PMDS
In any real receiver, there is a finite thermal noise
power ðPNÞ inherent in the system that is proportional to
both input bandwidth, BW, and the product kT; where T is
temperature in Kelvin and k is Boltzmann’s constant
PN ¼ kT BW: (3)
Cook et al.: SoC Issues for RF Smart Dust
Vol. 94, No. 6, June 2006 | Proceedings of the IEEE 1185
The minimum detectable signal power in a receiver
ðPMDSÞ is always greater than PN. The product of two
terms, noise factor ðNFÞ and signal-to-noise ratio
ðSNRMINÞ, quantifies the ratio by which PMDS must exceed
PN for successful transmission. The noise performance of
RF receivers is characterized by NF, defined as the ratio of
the total equivalent noise power to the fundamental lower
noise power limit PN. In the best case, NF equals 1, but it
is often in the range of 1.5–10 for real receivers. Intuitively,
higher NF implies that the receiver’s internal noise generators
dominate over the noise incident on the antenna.
The second term SNRMIN, describes the minimum required
ratio of signal power to noise power that must be maintained
to properly detect signals with a certain probability.
For example, to average less than one error for
every 1000 bits (or BER ¼ 103), a theoretical minimum
SNRMIN of 12 dB is required when noncoherent FSK is
the modulation technique and no coding is done [126].
Under these assumptions, the minimum detectable signal
power in the receiver is given by product
PMDS ¼ PN ðNF SNRMINÞ
¼ kT BW NF SNRMIN: (4)
C. Minimum Transmlission Energy per Bit: EBIT;TX
Link margin ðLMÞ quantifies the maximum path loss
between transmitter and receiver that can be tolerated
while maintaining a reliable link. LM is given by the ratio of
POUT to PMDS. At the maximum communication range
ðrMAXÞ, LM is equal to LPATH. Therefore, given rMAX, the
lower bound on transmitted power ðPTX;MINÞ is simply the
product of LPATH and PMDS.
POUT;MIN ¼ LPATH PMDS
¼ 4 r0
2
rMAX
r0
n
kT BW NF SNR: (5)
To convert POUT;MIN to energy per bit ðEBIT;TXÞ, we
must assume a relationship between the bitrate and the
receiver input bandwidth BW. Bitrate is generally proportional
to input bandwidth and, depending on the modulation
technique, may be higher or lower than BW. For
simplicity, we assume the bitrate is equal to BW. Then,
EBIT;TX is given by
EBIT;TX ¼ POUT;MIN
bitrate
4r0
2
rMAX
r0
n
kT NF SNRMIN:
Let bitrate ¼ BW: (6)
To calculate the minimum EBIT;TX, assume the base
station is an ideal, noncoherent FSK receiver (i.e., let
NF¼1 and SNRMIN ¼12 dB) located rMAX meters away
and apply (6). Assuming n ¼ 4, ro ¼ 1 m, rMAX ¼ 20 m
and a 1-GHz carrier signal, the minimum energy per
transmitted bit is only 20 pJVa factor of at least 102
lower than any of the reported values from Section IV.
In this scenario, if a bitrate of 1 Mb/s is used, only 20 W
must be transmitted to maintain a 20-m link. On the other
hand, if a 2.4-GHz carrier is chosen, the minimum energy
Fig. 7. Simplified block diagram of a low-IF or direct conversion RF transceiver.
Cook et al.: SoC Issues for RF Smart Dust
1186 Proceedings of the IEEE | Vol. 94, No. 6, June 2006
per bit increases to 114 pJ, because path loss is worse at
higher frequencies. This calculation represents the minimum
transmitted energy to reach a perfect receiver (i.e.,
NF ¼ 1) 20 m away. The total consumed energy by the
transmitter must be substantially higher due to overhead
circuit power ðPOH;TXÞ and nonideal efficiency in the
output amplifier ðePAÞ.
D. Design Considerations and Practical
Targets for EBIT
When calculating network energy cost per bit, the
power consumption of both the transmitting and receiving
motes should be included. Second, the models for transmitter
and receiver should take overhead power and nonideal
SNR, NF, and PA efficiency ðePAÞ into account. A
block diagram of a conventional direct-conversion or lowIF
transceiver, labeled with sources of overhead power, is
shown in Fig. 7.
The outlined portions of Fig. 7 represent sources of
power overhead. Though these blocks are needed for
functionality, they constitute overhead in the sense that
increasing power spent in them does not directly increase
link margin. In both transmitter and receiver, a large
portion of the overhead power is dedicated to generating a
stable RF signal with a voltage controlled oscillator (VCO).
Other significant sources of overhead are RF mixers for
modulation and channel selection, ADCs, DACs, and lowfrequency
filters. The power overhead of the VCO and RF
mixers is relatively independent of BW. However, the
overhead power in the DAC, ADC, and low-frequency
filters for channel selection and baseband processing will
depend on BW. Radios designed specifically for sensor
networks in [63] and [127]–[130] reported numbers for
power overhead between 0.17 and 0.9 mW in receive
mode, 0.3–7 mW in transmit mode for bitrates of 300 kb/s
and below.
In contrast, increased power in the PA and LNA does
directly increase link margin. In general, increased power
in the LNA makes the receiver more sensitive by
decreasing NF, but the proportional noise benefit steadily
diminishes at high power levels as NF asymptotically
approaches its minimum value of 1. On the other hand, the
output of a PA can be roughly proportional to power
consumed over a wide range. Efficient PA design over a
broad range of power outputs is discussed in [131]. Power
output of a PA can then be simply modeled by the product
of efficiency ðePAÞ and power consumed ðPPAÞ. PA
efficiencies ðePAÞ of 40% or higher have been reported
for various PAs with output power from 200 W to 10 mW
and beyond [127], [129], [132].
E. Optimal Bandwidth to Minimize EBIT
Fig. 8 shows a first-order graphical representation of
the power-performance tradeoffs in a simple RF
Fig. 8. Graphical representation of first order model of power-performance tradeoffs in an RF transceiver. Labeled numeric values are based
on the transceiver in [77].
Cook et al.: SoC Issues for RF Smart Dust
Vol. 94, No. 6, June 2006 | Proceedings of the IEEE 1187
transceiver. The figure is labeled with reported values
of POH;TX, POH;RX, PMDS and ePA from [127]. The simplified
model is useful for demonstrating tradeoffs and
deriving approximate energy consumption targets. Measured
data reported in [63] is shown in Fig. 9 for
comparison.
The equations describing this model are given below.
The term is dependent on antenna impedance, supply
voltage, and other circuit parameters (see [131]), but is
equal to 2 mW for the transceiver in [127]
POH ¼ POH;RF þ PBB
1 þ BW
BW0
(7)
PMDS ¼ kT BW SNRMIN 1 þ
PLNA (8)
POUT ¼ ePA PPA: (9)
The first question we wish to address is: Given a fixed
power budget for a link, how should power be distributed
between PA and LNA to maximize link margin ðLMÞ?
Dividing (9) by (8), we get an equation for LM in terms of
power consumption in PA and LNA. The goal is to
maximize LM when the sum PPA þ PLNA is held constant,
and the resulting equation, optimally relating LNA and PA
power consumption, is shown below
max PPAþPLNA¼C
f g LM )
dLM
dðPLNAÞ
¼ 0
) PPA ¼ P2
LNA
þ PLNA: (10)
This ratio is independent of the path loss exponent
assumed in (2). It is important to note that we have
implicitly assumed a time synchronized network, where
Fig. 9. Measured transceiver performance data reported in [63]. This 2.4-GHz radio operates from a 400-mV supply and achieves 4-nJ/bit
communication with 92-dB link margin. PA efficiency is 44% and the power overhead is estimated as POH;TX ¼ 400 uW and
POH;RX ¼ 170 uW.
Cook et al.: SoC Issues for RF Smart Dust
1188 Proceedings of the IEEE | Vol. 94, No. 6, June 2006
receiver and transmitter duty cycles are approximately
equal. By setting LM ¼ LPATH from (2), we can use (8) and
(9) to relate transceiver power consumption to range
ðrMAXÞ and bitrate (again, assume bitrate ¼ BW)
rMAX ¼r0
4r0
2
n
ePA PPA
kT BW SNRMIN
PLNA
PLNAþ
1
n
: (11)
Now, using (10) to relate PPA and PLNA
PLNA;OPT ¼ rMAX
r0
n
2
4r0
ePA
kT BW SNRMIN 1
2
:
(12)
Fig. 10. Energy per bit and transceiver power distribution versus bandwidth for fixed link margin of 88 dB ( ( 3)). e.g., r
25 m by
Cook et al.: SoC Issues for RF Smart Dust
Vol. 94, No. 6, June 2006 | Proceedings of the IEEE 1189
To incorporate the effect of transceiver startup time
on the overall EBIT versus BW tradeoff, some knowledge
of average number of data bits per transmission ðNAVGÞ
and transceiver initialization, synchronization, and
packet overhead time ðtINITÞ is needed. For the purpose
of illustration, we assume NAVG ¼ 1000 bits and
tINIT ¼ 1 ms. Assuming the transceiver is consuming full
power during synchronization, the energy cost per bit is
then the product of total link power and tINIT divided
by NAVG
EBIT;INIT ¼ ðPOH þ PPA þ PLNAÞ tINIT
NAVG : (14)
The total energy per bit, including initialization and
transmission, is the sum of (13) and (14). EBIT is minimized
Fig. 12. Top: optimum ratio of PA to LNA power. Bottom: energy per bit per meter (EBIT-MTR) versus the sum of PA þ LNA for 3 values of the
path-loss exponent(n). Optimum link margin and range are labeled for each value of n.
Cook et al.: SoC Issues for RF Smart Dust
Vol. 94, No. 6, June 2006 | Proceedings of the IEEE 1191
when the amount of energy spent during synchronization
and data transmission are equal, or equivalently (see
Fig. 10)
BWOPT ¼ NAVG
TINIT
: (15)
F. Optimal Link Margin and Range
to Minimize EBITMTR
Suppose we wish to send a set of data over a long
distance through a dense network with many available
paths (Fig. 11, bottom). From a global network energy
perspective, should we send the data the entire distance in
one hop, in several tiny hops to nearest neighbor motes, or
is there an ideal link range somewhere in between? In
dealing with this question, energy per bit per meter
ðEBIT MTRÞ is a more appropriate metric than EBIT.
If path loss characteristics are known, we can find an
optimum link range that will minimize the global network
energy cost for data transport by minimizing EBIT MTR.
Since (13) relates EBIT to both BW and r, EBIT MTR can be
obtained by simply dividing EBIT by r. EBIT MTR is plotted
versus power with BW fixed at 1 MHz for three values of
the path-loss exponent at the bottom of Fig. 12. This
plot shows that there exists an optimum energy range
and link margin for transporting data through a network
that depends on path-loss conditions and transceiver
characteristics. The optimum link margin ðLM;OPTÞ varies
by only 11 dB for values of n from two to four and has
the lowest value when the path-loss exponent is highest,
implying shorter hops are preferred when path-loss is
worst.
A more circuit focused link optimization is carried out
in [131]. All quantitative information in this example has
been based upon an extrapolation of transceiver performance
data reported in [127]. The actual transceiver was
designed for a 100 Kb/s bitrate and about 20 m of range,
with a resulting EBIT;MIN of about 25 nJ/bit.
VII. DISCUSSION
It is clear that a system-on-chip wireless sensor node with
an active power dissipation of less than 1 mW is not only
possible, but likely to be commercialized. The performance
possible in such a mote will be impressive,
including secure wireless communication at hundreds of
kilobits per second over distances of tens of meters, multihop
mesh networking, onboard sensors, 10- to 16-bit
ADCs, and a sensor datapath. Today’s commercially
available software runs all motes in a mesh network at
less than 1% radio duty cycle [26]. This implies average
mote power consumption of between 1 and 10 W. At
these power levels, mote lifetimes above a decade will be
possible with coin cell, or even button-cell batteries.
Near-term IC process scaling will reduce the area
required for memory and digital circuits to below a
square millimeter, but the analog and RF portions will
not scale as readily. Radio transceivers are unlikely to
shrink much in finer line width processes, as their area is
determined more by the physics of inductors than the
transistors that drive them. Unless integrated resonant LC
tanks are abandoned, low-GHz radios are stuck around a
square millimeter. Process scaling driven by purely highspeed
digital constraints is unlikely to provide the low
leakage necessary for submicrowatt operation, but other
Fig. 13. A complete sensor node may be implemented with varying levels of integration. While the cost, size, and power consumption of
off-the-shelf sensor nodes is far from optimal, a single-chip system may not be the most advantageous either. The most economical
solution is likely to be a hybrid of integrated and assembled parts.
Cook et al.: SoC Issues for RF Smart Dust
1192 Proceedings of the IEEE | Vol. 94, No. 6, June 2006
applications will drive low-leakage options in fine-line
width processes, and clever circuit design may solve the
leakage problem even in standard processes.
MEMS technology is likely to play a role in the
integration of a broader selection of sensors on chip. In
addition, RF filters and frequency references for both realtime
clocks and RF local oscillators are possible. Similarly,
nanotechnology is likely to be added first in the area of
sensors. Improvements in the stability of low-power realtime
clocks, based on MEMS, nano, or any other
technology, would have an immediate impact on moteto-mote
time synchronization and therefore power consumption.
The integration of MEMS or nano could in
principle reduce the size of radios well below a square
millimeter, but these radios will face the same challenging
RF environment as the radios that they replace, so
frequency agile architectures with robustness to strong
interference and deep fading will be required.
While in principle it is possible to integrate a battery,
antenna, and timing reference into a single-chip mote
with no external components, this is unlikely to be the
most economical approach. Integration of all the components
of a mote onto a single chip will involve making
substantial sacrifices in performance. The efficiency of a
millimeter-scale chip-based antenna will be lower than
that of a well designed antenna external to the chip.
Power scavenging and storage in a future integrated
process will not match what is possible with optimized
off-chip components. On the other hand, on-chip timekeeping
and frequency references using MEMS or nano
may ultimately rival or even exceed the performance of
off-chip crystal references. Fig. 13 illustrates some possible
incarnations of a wireless sensor mote, underscoring
size, power, and performance tradeoffs of integration
versus assembly.
For all of the performance and cost limitations of a true
system-on-chip mote with no external components, surely
at some point they will be produced, if only for academic
research. When that is the case, then wafers full of
completely functional motes will be formed in the final
metal etch of a CMOS process, take their first photovoltaic
breaths of life from the plasma’s glow, and start chatting
with each other while waiting for wafer passivation and
dicing.
REFERENCES
[1] B. Warneke, M. Last, B. Liebowitz, and
K. S. J. Pister, BSmart Dust: Communicating
with a cubic-millimeter computer,[.
Computer, vol. 34, pp. 44–51, 2001.
[2] K. W. Brendley and R. Steeb, Technologydriven
revolutions in military applications,
National Defense Research Institute,
Santa Monica, CA, 1992.
[3] A. Hierlemann, O. Brand, C. Hagleitner,
and H. Baltes, BMicrofabrication techniques
for chemical/biosensors,[. Proc. IEEE,
vol. 91, no. 6, pp. 839–863, Jun. 2003.
[4] H. Baltes, O. Paul, and O. Brand, BMicromachined
thermally based CMOS
microsensors,[. Proc. IEEE, vol. 86, no. 8,
pp. 1660–1678, Aug. 1998.
[5] J. M. Bustillo, R. T. Howe, and R. S. Muller,
BSurface micromachining for microelectromechanical
systems,[. Proc. IEEE,
vol. 86, no. 8, pp. 1552–1574, Aug. 1998.
[6] A. E. Franke, J. M. Heck, T.-J. King, and
R. T. Howe, BPolycrystalline silicongermanium
films for integrated
microsystems,[. J. Microelectromech.
Syst., vol. 12, pp. 160–171, 2003.
[7] G. K. Fedder, BMEMS fabrication,[ in Proc.
Int. Test Conf., 2003, pp. 691–698.
[8] R. J. Reay, E. H. Klaasen, and G. T. A.
Kovacs, BThermally and electrically
isolated single crystal silicon structures in
CMOS technology,[. Electron Device Lett.,
vol. 15, pp. 399–401, 1994.
[9] R. N. Candler, P. Woo-Tae, L. Huimou,
G. Yama, A. Partridge, M. Lutz, and
T. W. Kenny, BSingle wafer encapsulation of
MEMS devices,[. IEEE Trans. Adv. Packag.,
vol. 26, no. 3, pp. 227–232, Aug. 2003.
[10] K. Nunan, G. Ready, P. Garone, G. Sturdy,
and J. Sledziewski, BDeveloping a manufacturable
process for the deposition of thick
polysilicon films for micromachined
devices,[ in Proc. Advanced Semiconductor
Manufacturing Conf. and Workshop, 2000,
pp. 357–366.
[11] G. T. A. Kovacs, N. I. Maluf, and K. E.
Petersen, BBulk micromachining of
silicon,[. Proc. IEEE, vol. 86, no. 8,
pp. 1536–1551, Aug. 1998.
[12] K. Pister, BSmart Dust,[ presented at the
AVS Symp., Anaheim, CA, 1996.
[13] S. Hollar, BCOTS dust,[ Master’s thesis,
Dept. Elect. Eng., Univ. California,
Berkeley, 2000.
[14] J. L. Hill and D. E. Culler, BMica: A wireless
platform for deeply embedded networks,[.
IEEE Micro, vol. 22, no. 6, pp. 12–24,
Nov.–Dec. 2002.
[15] J. Hill, M. Horton, and R. King,
BThe platforms enabling wireless sensor
networks,[. Commun. ACM, vol. 47,
pp. 41–46, 2004.
[16] R. King, BIntel mote: An enhanced
sensor network node,[ presented at the
Int. Workshop Advanced Sensors, Structural
Health Monitoring and Smart Structures,
Tokyo, Japan, 2003.
[17] M. Weiser, BHot topics-ubiquitous
computing,[. Computer, vol. 26, pp. 71–72,
1993.
[18] VV, BThe computer for the 21st century,[.
Scientific American, pp. 19–25, 1991.
[19] D. Estrin, D. Culler, K. Pister, and
G. Sukhatme, BConnecting the physical
world with pervasive networks,[. IEEE
Pervasive Comput., vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 59–69,
Jan.–Mar. 2002.
[20] C. Chee-Yee and S. P. Kumar, BSensor
networks: Evolution, opportunities,
and challenges,[. Proc. IEEE, vol. 91, no. 8,
pp. 1247–1256, Aug. 2003.
[21] The Endeavour expedition: Charting
the fluid information utility. [Online].
Available: http://endeavour.cs.berkeley.
edu/proposal/.
[22] J. L. Hill, BA Software Architecture
Supporting Networked Sensors,[ Master’s
thesis, Dept. Elect. Eng. Comput. Sci., Univ.
California, Berkeley, 2000.
[23] J. Gutierrez, M. Naeve, E. Callaway,
M. Bourgeois, V. Mitter, and B. Heile,
BIEEE802.15.4: Developing standard for
low-power low-cost wireless personal
area networks,[. IEEE Netw., vol. 15, no. 5,
pp. 12–19, Sep.–Oct. 2001.
[24] Zigbee Alliance. [Online]. Available: http://
www.zigbee.org.
[25] IEEE 802.15.4 Standard. [Online].
Available: http://standards.ieee.org/
getieee802/download/802.15.4-2003.pdf.
[26] Dust Networks. [Online]. Available: http://
www.dustnetworks.com.
[27] Ember. [Online]. Available: http://www.
ember.com.
[28] Sensicast. [Online]. Available: http://www.
sensicast.com.
[29] Crossbow. [Online]. Available: http://www.
xbow.com.
[30] Millenial Net. [Online]. Available: http://
www.millenial.net.
[31] G. Asada, M. Dong, T. S. Lin, F. Newberg,
G. Pottie, W. J. Kaiser, and H. O. Marcy,
BWireless integrated network sensors: Low
power systems on a chip,[ in Proc. Eur.
Solid-State Circuits Conf., 1998, pp. 9–12.
[32] A. Mason, N. Yazdi, A. V. Chavan, K. Najafi,
and K. D. Wise, BA generic multielement
microsystem for portable wireless
applications,[. Proc. IEEE, vol. 86, no. 8,
pp. 1733–1746, Aug. 1998.
[33] K. D. Wise, K. Najafi, R. D. Sacks, and
E. T. Zellers, BA wireless integrated
microsystem for environmental
monitoring,[ in Proc. Int. Solid-State Circuits
Conf., 2004, pp. 434–437.
[34] C. L. Britton, BMEMS sensors and wireless
telemetry for distributed systems,[ in Proc.
Cook et al.: SoC Issues for RF Smart Dust
Vol. 94, No. 6, June 2006 | Proceedings of the IEEE 1193
Int. Symp. Smart Materials and Structures,
1998, pp. 112–123.
[35] T. B. Tang, E. A. Johannessen, and L. Wang,
BToward a miniature wireless integrated
multisensor microsystem for industrial and
biomedical applications,[. IEEE Sensors J.,
vol. 2, no. 6, pp. 628–635, Dec. 2002.
[36] J. H. Correia, E. Cretu, M. Bartek, and
R. F. Wolffenbuttel, BA microinstrumentation
system for industrial applications,[ in IEEE
Int. Symp. Industrial Electronics, 1997,
pp. 846–850.
[37] K. Bult, A. Burstein, D. Chang, M. Dong,
M. Fielding et al., BWireless integrated
microsensors,[ in Proc. Conf. Sensors and
Systems, 1996, pp. 33–38.
[38] J. Barton, BDevelopment of distributed
sensing systems of autonomous micromodules,[
in Proc. Electronic Components
and Technology Conf., 2003, pp. 1112–1118.
[39] C. L. Britton, BBattery-powered, wireless
MEMS sensors for high-sensitivity chemical
and biological sensing,[ in Proc. Symp.
Advanced Research in VLSI, 1999, p. 359.
[40] J. M. Rabaey, J. Ammer, T. Karalar, S. Li,
B. Otis, M. Sheets, and T. Tuan,
BPicoRadios for wireless sensor networks:
The next challenge in ultra-low power
design,[ in Proc. Int. Solid-State Circuits
Conf., 2002, pp. 200–201.
[41] J. L. Hill, BSystem architecture for wireless
Computer,[ vol. 37, pp. 62–70,2004.
[43] B. A. Warneke, M. D. Scott, B. S. Leibowitz,
L. Zhou, C. L. Bellew, J. A. Chediak, J. M.
Kahn, B. E. Boser, and K. S. J. Pister, BAn
autonomous 16 mm3 solar-powered node for
distributed wireless sensor networks,[ in Proc.
IEEE Sensors, vol. 2, 2002, pp. 1510–1515.
[44] V. Pieris, C. Arm, S. Bories, S. Cserveny,
F. Giroud et al., BA 1 V 433 MHz/868 MHz
25 kb/s FSK 2 kb/s OOK RF transceiver
SoC in standard digital 0.18 um CMOS,[
in Proc. Int. Solid State Circuits Conf.
(ISSCC), 2005, pp. 258–259.
[45] ChipConCC1010 DataSheet. [Online].
Available: http://www.chipcon.com.
[46] Chicago Health Clinic Deployment.
[Online]. Available: http://dust-inc.com/
PDF/Chicago_Clinic_Success_Story.pdf.
[47] N. Patwari, J. N. Ash, S. Kyperountas,
A. O. Hero, R. L. Moses, and N. S. Correal,
BLocating the nodes: Cooperative
localization in wireless sensor networks,[.
IEEE Signal Process. Mag, vol. 22, no. 4,
pp. 54–69, Jul. 2005.
[48] H. Brashear, T. Starner, P. Lukowicz, and
H. Junker, BUsing multiple sensors for
mobile sign language recognition,[ in Proc.
IEEE Symp. Wearable Computers, 2003,
pp. 45–52.
[49] S. Mann, BWearable computing: Toward
humanistic intelligence,[. IEEE Intell. Syst.,
vol. 16, no. 3, pp. 10–15, May–Jun. 2001.
[50] J. K. Perng, B. Fisher, S. Hollar, and K. S. J.
Pister, BAcceleration sensing glove (ASG),[
in Proc. Int. Symp. Wearable Computers,
1999, pp. 178–180.
[51] S. Matsushita, T. Oba, K. Otsuki, M. Toji,
J. Otsuki, and K. Ogawa, BA wearable sense
of balance monitoring system toward daily
health care monitoring,[ in Proc. Int. Symp.
Wearable Computers, 2003, pp. 176–183.
[52] X. Sha, G. Iachello, S. Dow, Y. Serita,
T. St. Julien, and J. Fistre, BContinuous
sensing of gesture for control of audiovisual
media,[ in Proc. Int. Symp. Wearable
Computers, 2003, pp. 236–237.
[53] M. C. Hans and M. T. Smith, BA wearable
networked MP3 player and Fturntable_ for
collaborative scratching,[ in Proc. IEEE Symp.
Wearable Computers, 2003, pp. 138–145.
[54] M. Maroti, G. Simon, A. Ledeczi, and
J. Sztipanovits, BShooter localization
in urban terrain,[. Computer, vol. 37,
pp. 60–61, 2004.
[55] D. McErlean and S. Narayanan,
BDistributed detection and tracking in
sensor networks,[ in Proc. Asilomar Conf.
Signals, Systems and Computers, 2002,
pp. 1174–1178.
[56] A. Sikora and V. F. Groza, BCoexistence
of IEEE802.15.4 with other systems in the
2.4 GHz ISM band,[ in Proc.
Instrumentations and Measurement
Technology Conf., 2005, pp. 1786–1791.
[57] J. Werb, M. Newman, V. Berry, S. Lamb,
D. Sexton, and M. Lapinski, BImproved
quality of service in IEEE 802.15.4 Mesh
Networks,[ presented at the Int. Workshop
Wireless and Industrial Automation,
San Francisco, CA, 2005.
[58] Texas InstrumentsTLV0831 DataSheet.
[Online]. Available: http://www.ti.com.
[59] Texas InstrumentsMSP430 DataSheet.
[Online]. Available: http://www.ti.com.
[60] Chipcon 2420 DataSheet. [Online].
Available: http://www.chipcon.com/files/
CC2420_Data_Sheet_1_2.pdf.
[61] J. Rabaey, A. Chandrakasan, and
B. Nikolic, Digital Integrated Circuits
(2nd Edition). Upper Saddle River, NJ:
Prentice-Hall, 2002.
[62] D. Flandre, J. P. Colinge, J. Chen,
D. De Cuester, J. P. Eggermont, L. Ferreira,
B. Gentinne, P. G. A. Jespers, A. Viviani,
R. Gillon, J. P. Raskin, A. Vander Vorst,
D. Vanhoenacker-Janvier, and F. Silveira,
BFully-depleted SOI CMOS technology for
low-voltage low-power mixed digital/analog/
microwave circuits,[. Analog Circuits Signal
Process., vol. 21, pp. 213–228, 1999.
[63] B. W. Cook, A. D. Berny, A. Molnar,
S. Lanzisera, and K. Pister, BAn ultra-low
power 2.4 GHz RF transceiver for wireless
sensor networks in 130 nm CMOS with
400 mV supply and an integrated passive
RX front-end,[ presented at the ISSCC,
San Francisco, CA, 2006.
[64] B. A. Warneke and K. S. J. Pister, BAn ultralow
energy microcontroller for Smart Dust
wireless sensor networks,[ in Proc. IEEE Int.
Solid-State Circuits Conf., 2004, pp. 316–317.
[65] M. D. Scott, B. E. Boser, and K. S. J. Pister,
BAn ultralow-energy ADC for Smart Dust,[.
IEEE J. Solid-State Circuits, vol. 38, no. 7,
pp. 1123–1129, Jul. 2004.
[66] R. Amirtharajah and A. P. Chandrakasan,
BA micropower programmable DSP using
approximate signal processing based on
distributed arithmetic,[. IEEE J. Solid-State
Circuits, vol. 39, no. 2, pp. 337–347,
Feb. 2004.
[67] J. Xiao, A. V. Peterchev, J. Zhang, and
S. R. Sanders, BA 4 uA quiescent-current
dual-mode digitally controlled buck
converter IC for cellular phone
applications,[. IEEE J. Solid-State Circuits,
vol. 39, no. 12, pp. 2342–2348, Dec. 2004.
[68] A. D. Wood and J. A. Stankovic, BDenial
of service in sensor networks,[. Computer,
vol. 35, pp. 54–62, 2002.
[69] A. Perrig, R. Szewczyk, V. Wen, D. Culler,
and J. D. Tygar, BSPINS: Security protocols
for sensor networks,[ presented at the
Mobile Computing and Networking,
Rome, Italy, 2001.
[70] C. Karlof, N. Sastry, and D. Wagner,
BTinySec: A link layer security architecture
for wireless sensor networks,[ presented at
the SensSys ’04, Baltimore, MD, 2004.
[71] N. Sastry and D. Wagner, BSecurity
considerations for IEEE 802.15.4
networks,[ presented at the WiSE,
Philadelphia, PA, 2004.
[72] CSRC Advanced Encryption Standard.
[Online]. Available: http://csrc.nist.gov/
encryption/aes/.
[73] Ember EM250 Radio Solution. [Online].
Available: http://www.ember.com/products/
chips/em250.html.
[74] R. Watro, D. Kong, S. Cuti, C. Gardiner,
C. Lynn, and P. Kruss, BTinyPK: Securing
sensor networks with publickey
technology,[ presented at the SASN ’04,
Washington, DC, 2004.
[75] N. Gura, A. Patel, A. Wander, H. Eberle,
and S. Shantz, BComparing elliptic curve
cryptography and RSA on 8-bit CPUs,[
presented at the Workshop Cryptographic
Hardware and Embedded Systems, Boston,
MA, 2004.
[76] A. Savvides, C.-C. Han, and M. B.
Strivastava, BDynamic fine-grained
localization in ad hoc networks of sensors,[
in Proc. Int. Conf. Mobile Networking and
Computing, 2001, pp. 166–179.
[77] N. B. Priyantha, A. Chakraborty, and
H. Balakrishnan, BThe cricket locationsupport
system,[ in Proc. Int. Conf.
Mobile Computing and Networking,
2000, pp. 32–43.
[78] F. Zhao and L. Guibas, BDistributed
group management for track initiation
and maintenance in target localization
applications,[ presented at the Information
Processing in Sensor Networks (IPSN),
Palo Alto, CA, 2003.
[79] L. Doherty, K. S. J. Pister, and L. El Ghaoui,
BConvex position estimation in wireless
sensor networks,[ in Proc. INFOCOM 2001,
2001, pp. 1655–1663.
[80] H. Hashemi, BThe indoor radio propagation
channel,[. Proc. IEEE, vol. 81, no. 7, pp. 943–
968, Jul. 1993.
[81] S. Lanzisera, D. Lin, and K. Pister, BRF time
of flight ranging for wireless sensor network
localization,[ presented at the 4th Workshop
Intelligent Solutions in Embedded Systems
(WISES), Vienna, Austria, 2006.
[82] M. van Heijningen, M. Badaroglu,
S. Donnay, G. G. E. Gielen, and H. J.
De Man, BSubstrate noise generation
in complex digital systems: Efficient
modeling and simulation methodology
and experimental verification,[. IEEE
J. Solid-State Circuits, vol. 37, no. 8,
pp. 1065–1072, Aug. 2002.
[83] T. Blalack, Y. Leclercq, and C. P. Yue,
BOn-chip RF isolation techiques,[ in Proc.
Bipolar/BiCMOS Circuits and Technology
Meeting, 2002, pp. 205–211.
[84] O. E. Erdogan, BA single-chip quad band
GSM/GPRS in 0.18 m standard CMOS,[
in Proc. Int. Solid-State Circuits Conf., 2005,
pp. 318–319.
[85] Y. Su, J. Lin, and K. O. Kenneth, BA 20 GHz
CMOS RF down-converter with an on-chip
antenna,[ in Dig. Tech. Papers, 2005
IEEE Int. Solid-State Circuits Conf., 2004,
pp. 270–271, 597.
[86] J.-J. Lin, L. Gao, A. Sugavanam, X. Guo,
R. Li, J. E. Brewer, and K. K. O., BIntegrated
antennas on silicon substrates for
communication over free space,[. Electron
Device Lett., vol. 25, pp. 196–198, 2004.
[87] F. Touati and M. Pons, BOn-chip
integration of dipole antenna and VCO
Cook et al.: SoC Issues for RF Smart Dust
1194 Proceedings of the IEEE | Vol. 94, No. 6, June 2006
using standard BiCMOS technology for
10 GHz applications,[ in Proc.
Eur. Solid-State Circuits Conf., 2003,
pp. 493–496.
[88] NTK Dielectric Chip Antenna Home.
[Online]. Available: http://www.ntktech.
com/Chip_Antenna_Home.htm.
[89] ANT-2.45-CHP Datasheet. [Online].
Available: http://www.antennafactor.com/
documents/ant-24-chp_data_sheet.pdf.
[90] Y.-W. Lin, S. Lee, S.-S. Li, Y. Xie, Z. Ren,
and C. T.-C. Nguyen, B60-MHz wine glass
micromechanical disk reference oscillator,[
in Proc. Int. Solid-State Circuits Conf., 2004,
pp. 322–323.
[91] G. Piazza, P. J. Stephanou, J. M. Porter,
M. B. J. Wijesundara, and A. P. Pisano, BLow
motional resistance ring-shaped contourmode
aluminum nitride micromechanical
resonators for UHF applications,[ in
Proc. IEEE Int. Conf. MEMS, 2005,
pp. 20–23.
[92] E. Quevy, S. A. Bhave, H. Takeuchi,
T.-J. King, and R. T. Howe, BPoly-SiGe
high frequency resonators based on
lithographic definition of nano-gap lateral
transducers,[ in Proc. Hilton Head Workshop,
2004, pp. 360–363.
[93] J. Wang, J. E. Butler, T. Feygelson, and
C. T.-C. Nguyen, B1.51-GHz nanocrystalline
diamond micromechanical disk resonator
with material-mismatched isolating
support,[ in Proc. IEEE Int. Conf. MEMS,
2004, pp. 641–644.
[94] W. T. Hsu and C. T.-C. Nguyen, BStiffnesscompensated
temperature-insensitive
micromechanical resonators,[ in Proc. IEEE
Conf. Micro Electro Mechanical Systems
(MEMS), 2002, pp. 721–724.
[95] C. T.-C. Nguyen, BVibrating RF MEMS for
next generation wireless applications,[ in
Proc. Custom Integrated Circuits Conf., 2004,
pp. 257–264.
[96] A. Bakker and J. H. Huijsing, BMicropower
CMOS temperature sensor with digital
output,[. IEEE J. Solid-State Circuits, vol. 31,
no. 7, pp. 933–937, Jul. 1996.
[97] J. C. van der Meer, BA fully integrated
CMOS hall sensor with a 3.65 T 3 s
offset for compass applications,[ in
Proc. Int. Solid-State Circuits Conf.,
2005, pp. 246–247.
[98] P. Catrysse, B. Wandell, and A. El Gamal,
BAn integrated color pixel in 0.18 m
CMOS technology,[ in Proc. Electron Devices
Meeting, 2001, pp. 2441–2444.
[99] S.-M. Jung, J.-M. Nam, D.-H. Yang, and
M.-K. Lee, BA CMOS integrated capacitive
fingerprint sensor with 32-bit RISC
microcontroller,[. IEEE J. Solid-State Circuits,
vol. 40, no. 8, pp. 1745–1750, Aug. 2005.
[100] O. Schrey, J. Huppertz, G. Filimonovic,
A. Bubmann, W. Brockherde, and B. J.
Hosticka, BA1K 1 K high dynamic
range CMOS image sensor with on-chip
programmable region-of-interest readout,[
IEEE J. Solid-State Circuits, vol. 37, no. 7,
pp. 911–916, Jul. 2002.
[101] W.-J. Liu, O. T.-C. Chen, L.-K. Dai, P.-K.
Keng, K.-H. Huang, and F.-W. Jih, BA color
image sensor using adaptive color pixels,[ in
Proc. Midwest Symp. Circuits and Systems,
2002, pp. 441–444.
[102] C. L. J. Britton, BBattery-powered, wireless
MEMS sensors for high-sensitivity chemical
and biological sensing,[ in Proc. Conf.
Advanced Research in VLSI, 1999,
pp. 359–368.
[103] H. Baltes, A. Koll, and D. Lange, BThe
CMOS MEMS nose-fact or fiction?[ in
Proc. Int. Symp. Industrial Electronics, 1997,
pp. 152–157.
[104] A. Witvrouw, BProcessing of MEMS gyroscopes
on top of CMOS ICs,[ in Proc. Int.
Solid-State Circuits Conf., 2005, pp. 88–89.
[105] J. J. Neumann and K. J. Gabriel,
BA fully-integrated CMOS-MEMS
audio microphone,[ in Proc. Int. Conf.
Transducers, Solid-State Sensors, Actuators
and Microsystems, 2003, pp. 230–233.
[106] E. Kruglick, B. Warneke, and K. Pister,
BCMOS 3 axis accelerometers with
integrated amplifiers,[ in Proc. 11th Annu. Int.
Workshop Micro Electro Mechanical Systems
(MEMS98), pp. 631–638.
[107] W. J. Li, T. C. H. Ho, G. M. H. Chan, P. H.
W. Leong, and H. Y. Wong, BInfrared signal
transmission by a laser-micromachined,
vibration-induced power generator,[ in
Proc. Midwest Symp. Circuits and Systems,
2000, pp. 236–239.
[108] R. Amirtharajah and A. P. Chandrakasan,
BSelf-powered signal processing using
vibration-based power generation,[. IEEE
J. Solid-State Circuits, vol. 33, no. 5,
pp. 687–695–695, May 1998.
[109] S. Meninger, J. O. Mur-Miranda,
R. Amirtharajah, A. Chandrakasan, and
J. H. Lang, BVibration-to-electric energy
conversion,[. IEEE Trans. Very Large Scale
Integr. (VLSI) Syst., vol. 9, no. 1, pp. 64–76,
Feb. 2001.
[110] S. Roundy, D. Steingart, L. Frechette,
P. Wright, and J. Rabaey, BPower sources
for wireless sensor networks,[ in Proc.
1st Eur. Workshop Wireless Sensor Networks,
vol. 29, 2004, pp. 1–17.
[111] BGeographical and seasonal variation in
solar radiation,[ in CRC Handbook of
Chemistry and Physics, 85th ed. Boca
Raton, FL: CRC, 2004,, pp.. 23.
[112] M. A. Green, BSolar cell efficiency tables,[
in Progress in Photovoltaics: Research and
Applications. New York: Wiley, 2004,
vol. 11, pp. 39–45.
[113] C. L. Bellew, S. Hollar, and K. S. J. Pister,
BAn SOI process for fabrication of solar
cells, transistors and electrostatic
actuators,[ in Proc. Int. Conf. Solid-State
Sensors, Actuators, and Microsystems, 2003,
pp. 1075–1078.
[114] Iowa Thin-Films Company Website.
[Online]. Available: http://
www.iowathinfilm.com.
[115] N. J. Dudney, BSolid-state thin-film
rechargeable lithium batteries,[ Mater.
Sci. Eng., 2005.
[116] Oak Ridge Micro-Energy. [Online].
Available: http://www.oakridgemicro.com.
[117] Cymbet Corporation. [Online]. Available:
http://www.cymbet.com.
[118] Excellatron Solid-State. [Online]. Available:
http://www.excellatron.com.
[119] Front Edge Technology. [Online]. Available:
http://www.frontedgetechnology.com.
[120] Infinite Power Solutions Company
Website. [Online]. Available: http://
www.infinitepowersolutions.com.
[121] W. C. West, J. F. Whitacre, V. White, and
B. V. Ratnakumar, BFabrication and testing
of all solid-state microscale lithium batteries
for microspacecraft applications,[.
J. Micromech. and Microeng., vol. 12,
pp. 58–62, 2002.
[122] K. B. Lee and L. Lin, BElectrolyte-based
on-demand and disposable microbattery,[.
J. Microelectromech. Syst., vol. 12,
pp. 840–847, 2003.
[123] MR. M. LaFollette and J. N. Harbb,
BMicrofabricated secondary batteries
for remote, autonomous, electronic
devices,[ in Proc. Conf. Battery Applications
and Advances, 2001, pp. 349–354.
[124] H. T. Friis, BA note on a simple transmission
formula,[. Proc. IRE, pp. 254–256, 1946.
[125] E. Walker, H.-J. Zepernick, and T. Wysocki,
BFading measurements at 2.4 GHz for
the indoor radio propagation channel,[ in
Proc. Int. Zurich Seminar on Broadband
Communications, 1998, pp. 171–176.
[126] J. G. Proakis, Digital Communications,
1st ed. New York: McGraw-Hill, 2000.
[127] A. Molnar, B. Lu, S. Lanzisera, B. W. Cook,
and K. S. J. Pister, BAn ultra-low power
900 MHz RF transceiver for wireless sensor
networks,[ in Proc. Custom Integrated
Circuits Conf., 2004, pp. 401–404.
[128] A.-S. Porret, T. Melly, D. Python, C. C. Enz,
and E. A. Vittoz, BAn ultralow-power UHF
transceiver integrated in a standard digital
CMOS process: Architecture and receiver,[.
IEEE J. Solid-State Circuits, vol. 36, no. 3,
pp. 452–466, Mar. 2001.
[129] T. Melly, A.-S. Porret, C. C. Enz, and E. A.
Vittoz, BAn ultralow-power UHF transceiver
integrated in a standard digital CMOS
process: Transmitter,[. IEEE J. Solid-State
Circuits, vol. 36, no. 3, pp. 467–472,
Mar. 2001.
[130] B. Otis, Y. H. Chee, and J. Rabaey, BA
400 W RX, 1.6 mW TX, 1.9 GHz transceiver
in .13 m CMOS based on MEMS
resonators,[ in Proc. Int. Solid-State
Circuits Conf., 2005, pp. 200–201.
[131] B. W. Cook, A. Molnar, and K. Pister, BLow
power RF design for sensor networks,[ in
Proc. Radio Frequency Integrated Circuits
(RFIC) Symp., 2005, pp. 357–360.
[132] P. Choi, BAn experimental coin-sized radio
for extremely low-power WPAN (IEEE
802.15.4) application at 2.4 GHz,[ IEEE J.
Solid-State Circuits, vol. 38, no. 12,
pp. 2258–2268, Dec. 2003.
[133] W. Ye, J. Heidemann, and D. Estrin,
BMedium access control with coordinated,
adaptive sleeping for wireless sensor
networks,[. IEEE/ACM Trans. Netw.,
vol. 12, no. 3, pp. 493–506,
Jun. 2004.
[134] J. Polastre, J. L. Hill, and D. Culler,
BVersatile low power media access for
wireless sensor networks,[ presented at the
SenSys’04, Baltimore, MD, 2004.
[135] B. Hohlt, L. Doherty, and E. Brewer,
BFlexible power scheduling for sensor
networks,[ presented at the IPSN’04,
Berkeley, CA, 2004.
[136] E. A. Lin, J. Rabaey, and A. Wolisz, BPowerefficient
rendez-vous schemes for dense
wireless sensor networks,[ presented at the
IEEE Int. Conf. Communications (ICC) 2004,
Paris, France, 2004.
Cook et al.: SoC Issues for RF Smart Dust
Vol. 94, No. 6, June 2006 | Proceedings of the IEEE 1195
ABOUT THE AUTHORS
Ben W. Cook (Student Member, IEEE) received the
B.E. degree from Vanderbilt University, Nashville,
TN, in 2001. He is currently working toward the
Ph.D. degree at the University of California,
Berkeley.
Since the summer of 2003, he has worked as a
Design Engineer and Consultant for Dust Networks,
Hayward, CA, where he has worked on
ultralow-power transceivers for the 900-MHz and
2.4-GHz ISM bands. His research has focused on
low-power, highly integrated hardware for wireless sensor networks,
with a particular emphasis on RF transceivers.
Steven Lanzisera (Student Member, IEEE) received
the B.S.E.E. degree from the University of
Michigan, Ann Arbor, in 2002. He is currently
working toward the Ph.D. degree at the University
of California, Berkeley.
He was an engineer with the Space Physics
Research Laboratory at the University of Michigan
from 1999 to 2002, where he worked on satellite
integration and testing. He has held internships
with Guidant Corporation and TRW Space Systems,
respectively. His research has focused on low-power mixed signal IC
design and RF time of flight ranging technologies.
Kristofer S. J. Pister received the B.A. degree in
applied physics from the University of California,
San Diego, in 1986 and the M.S. and Ph.D. degrees
in electrical engineering from the University of
California, Berkeley, in 1989 and 1992.
From 1992 to 1997 he was an Assistant
Professor of Electrical Engineering at the University
of California, Los Angeles, where he helped
developed the graduate microelectromechanical
systems (MEMS) curriculum, and coined the term
BSmart Dust.[ Since 1996, he has been a Professor of Electrical
Engineering and Computer Sciences at the University of California,
Berkeley. In 2003 and 2004, he was on leave from the University of
California, Berkeley, as CEO and then CTO of Dust Networks, Hayward, CA,
a company he founded to commercialize wireless sensor networks. He
has participated in many government science and technology programs,
including the DARPA ISAT and Defense Science Study Groups, and he is
currently a member of the Jasons. His research interests include MEMS,
micro robotics, and low-power circuits.
![V_{\text{max}} = \pm \frac{3}{4(\kappa_0+\kappa)}[e_{\text{33}} - 2(1 + \nu) e_{\text{15}} - 2\nu e_{\text{31}}] \frac{a^3}{l^3} \nu_{\text{max}}](https://upload.wikimedia.org/math/5/a/9/5a945f06891de20911dd21f8f5f89cde.png)
