International Journal of Reconfigurable and Embedded Systems (IJRES)

Vol. 14, No. 1, March 2025, pp. 165~175

ISSN: 2089-4864, DOI: 10.11591/ijres.v14.i1.pp165-175  165

Comparative analysis of ZigBee, LoRa, and NB-IoT in a smart

building: advantages, limitations, and integration possibilities

Tanakorn Inthasuth1, Yongyut Kaewjumras2, Sahapong Somwong1, Wasana Boonsong3

1
Department of Electrical Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, Rajamangala University of Technology Srivijaya, Songkhla, Thailand
2
Department of Mechanical Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, Rajamangala University of Technology Srivijaya, Songkhla, Thailand
3
Department of Electrical Education, Faculty of Industrial Education and Technology, Rajamangala University of Technology Srivijaya,
Songkhla, Thailand

Article Info ABSTRACT

Article history: This paper compares the performance of various wireless technologies:
ZigBee, long range (LoRa), and narrowband internet of things (NB-IoT),
Received Jul 23, 2023 which support smart building applications. The highlight of this work is that
Revised Aug 12, 2024 we focus on wireless communication between the floors of the building by
Accepted Sep 6, 2024 analyzing the performance metrics using the received signal strength
indicator (RSSI) and packet loss ratio (PLR). First, the ZigBee tests
confirmed reliable packet delivery without any loss over distances up to 40
Keywords: meters on the same floor, with RSSI results ranging from -65.5 to -87.5
dBm. ZigBee also maintained signal transmission through one cross-floor
Long range level, with RSSI values between -60 and -119 dBm. The second set of tests,
Narrowband internet of things with LoRa, indicated signal transmission over several floors with slightly
Smart building improved RSSI values for the 2 dBi antenna compared to those for the -4
Wirless sensor network dBi antenna, despite increased packet loss with distance. Finally, NB-IoT
ZigBee showed the most consistent long-range connectivity, achieving a stable
signal up to 458 meters from the base station with RSSI levels varying from
-55.6 to -74.6 dBm, without packet loss in all tests. This study demonstrates
how such technologies could be used in smart buildings and provides
suggestions on how to determine the most suitable systems and configure
them to ensure reliable communication networks within the building.
This is an open access article under the CC BY-SA license.

Corresponding Author:
Yongyut Kaewjumras
Department of Mechanical Engineering, Faculty of Engineering
Rajamangala University of Technology Srivijaya
Songkhla, Thailand
Email: [email protected]

1. INTRODUCTION
Wireless communication technology is recognized as a significant catalyst for the implementation of
smart buildings, enhancing data transport and connectivity among various devices and systems within the
building structure [1]. This technology integrates short-range and long-range wireless networks to
accommodate both limited interior spaces and expansive areas [2]. A smart building network combines short-
range technologies such as wireless fidelity (Wi-Fi), Bluetooth, and ZigBee with long-range communications
like long range (LoRa), narrowband internet of things (NB-IoT), and long term evolution for machines (LTE-
M) [3]. This paper presents an in-depth analysis of these wireless technologies. The integration of these
wireless systems enables a thorough assessment of individual capabilities, leading to enhanced automation,
energy efficiency, and comprehensive facility management [4]. The wireless sensor network (WSN) is
described as a connection between sensing and networking components for physical data measurement,

Journal homepage: http://ijres.iaescore.com

166  ISSN: 2089-4864

offering affordability and extensive coverage across all installation points [5]. In addition, wireless
connectivity enables both short-range and long-range communication within smart homes and building
environments. WSNs are selected based on bit rate, distance, and power consumption. ZigBee is best suited
for low bit rate and energy-efficient data transmission, while Bluetooth and Wi-Fi are more suitable for high
bit rates with elevated power consumption [6]. Therefore, WSNs have multiple adaptable features, making
them effective solutions in many innovative applications [7].
Previous studies [8] focused primarily on text-based data transmission and used the appropriate
platform for small data payloads in ZigBee devices. However, communication systems like LoRa and NB-
IoT can transfer data over kilometers [9]. The functionalities inside the building should also be examined by
looking at the received signal strength indicator (RSSI), which is particularly meaningful for indoor objects
such as buildings, walls, and office paraphernalia that influence wireless communication quality [10]. The
packet loss ratio (PLR) is also an essential indicator [11]. Precise signal strength determination under such
conditions is crucial for ensuring quality and successful indoor installation of wireless devices. The building
monitoring application had a unique networking setup that used mixed protocols like ZigBee, LoRa, and NB-
IoT, along with wireless networking elements and application sections [12]. The sensing section uses smart
devices to collect information regarding environmental parameters and electrical current values [13]. The
building was equipped with various strategically placed sensors that gathered instantaneous information
about temperature, humidity, light, energy usage, and many other factors [14]. The gateway (GW) converts
data sets from one or several communication protocols to different ones [15]. This support for systems’
interoperability promotes efficient data management. Wireless communication made it possible to extend the
network connection from short-range to long-range, spreading throughout the entire building [16], [17].
Figure 1 shows the network expansion through the application of wireless technologies. The GW converted
ZigBee’s data into LoRa and NB-IoT data, respectively.

Internet
Base
Long range
station
(kilometer level) Gateway
(LoRa to NB-IoT)

ZigBee to LoRa converter

Short range (meter level)

ZigBee sensing devices ZigBee link LoRa link NB-IoT link Internet link

Figure 1. Range comparison of ZigBee, LoRa, and NB-IoT wireless technologies

This paper compares ZigBee, LoRa, and NB-IoT technologies in testbed environments for indoor
applications, providing their RSSI and PLR metrics. Therefore, this study evaluates the presumed operational
boundaries and strengths of each indoor internet of things (IoT) technology by methodically testing these
metrics. Figure 2 illustrates the testbed building used for wireless communication trials. Figure 2(a) shows
the exterior view of the faculty of engineering building, which houses the testing facilities. Figure 2(b)
depicts the interior corridor where the wireless communication experiments were conducted, providing a
controlled environment for the trials. The insights into selecting the best indoor wireless technology for IoT
applications, as explained in this study, will expedite the implementation of these technologies into proper
smart buildings. Additionally, our experiments were conducted in real-world scenarios that included the
presence of potential signal-interfering devices, such as Wi-Fi access points distributed across various floors
of the building. It is essential to note that these devices were not under our control during the
experimentation. This fact underscores the importance of considering such environmental variables in future
research. Studies that have the capability to control these access point devices should certainly include an
evaluation of their impact on wireless communication, thereby enriching our understanding of how IoT
technologies perform in practical, real-world smart building environments.

Int J Reconfigurable & Embedded Syst, Vol. 14, No. 1, March 2025: 165-175
Int J Reconfigurable & Embedded Syst ISSN: 2089-4864  167

(a) (b)

Figure 2. Testbed building for wireless communication trials of (a) exterior and (b) corridor

2. METHOD
In the methods section, we elaborate on our experimental setup for evaluating the RSSI and PLR in
smart buildings using ZigBee, LoRa, and NB-IoT technologies. Our focus is on determining how well these
wireless technologies perform in terms of signal quality and reliability within indoor environments. We
employed different types of modules for each technology ZigBee, LoRa, and NB-IoT at both the transmitter
and receiver ends to measure RSSI and PLR, thereby assessing their suitability for smart building networks.
Figure 3 presents a diagram of the wireless and portable devices used in the experiment.

XBee device LoRa device NB-IoT device

Figure 3. Comparative setup of ZigBee, LoRa, and NB-IoT modules for wireless communication testing

Table 1 compares ZigBee, LoRa, and NB-IoT technologies, highlighting differences in power, data
rates, and frequencies. ZigBee operates at 2.4 GHz, LoRa at 433 MHz with variable antenna gains, and NB-
IoT features the highest power transmission at 900 MHz. For ZigBee, we used XBee modules with a power
transmission of 2 milliwatts (mW), which are typically used in short-range building applications. LoRa
measurements utilized the RA-01 module, chosen for its long-range capabilities, while the NB-IoT
evaluation was conducted using the Quectel BC95 module, known for its efficient power usage and effective
penetration in complex environments. Our testing took place in an actual multi-floor building to simulate
real-world conditions and assess each technology's performance under typical operating scenarios.

Table 1. Comparative specifications of ZigBee, LoRa, and NB-IoT technologies [9], [18], [19]
Parameter ZigBee LoRa NB-IoT
Communication module XBee series 2 RA-01 Quectel BC95
Protocol ZigBee/IEEE802.15.4 User-defined protocols UDP/CoAP
Power transmitter 2 mW (3.01 dBm) 158 mW (22 dBm) 199.5 mW (23 dBm)
Antenna type Wire Omni-directional Omni-directional
Antenna gain N/A -4 dBi and 2 dBi 2.65 dBi
Frequency band 2.4 GHz 433 MHz 900 MHz
Data transmission rate 250 kbps Up to 300 kbps 25.2 kbps (downlink) and 15.625 kbps (uplink)
MCU connected Standalone Arduino Arduino
Power input 3.3 V 3.3 V 3.3 V
User interface (UI) XCTU Arduino monitor Magellan platform

Comparative analysis of ZigBee, LoRa, and NB-IoT in a smart building: advantages … (Tanakorn Inthasuth)
168  ISSN: 2089-4864

We adopted a point-to-point topology for the subsystems across all three technologies, enabling a
comprehensive assessment of their performance within the context of an indoor wireless communication
network. This assessment specifically focuses on the PLR and RSSI metrics, which are calculated according
to (1) and (2), respectively, as detailed in [20], [21]:
𝑛𝐿
𝑃𝐿𝑅 = × 100% (1)
𝑛𝑇

1
̅̅̅̅̅̅ =
𝑅𝑆𝑆𝐼 ∑ 𝑅𝑆𝑆𝐼 (2)
𝑛𝑇

̅̅̅̅̅̅
where 𝑃𝐿𝑅 is packet loss ratio, 𝑛𝐿 is number of packets lost, 𝑛 𝑇 is number of total packets transmitted, 𝑅𝑆𝑆𝐼
is RSSI average, and 𝑅𝑆𝑆𝐼 is RSSI measurement value per time instance.

2.1. ZigBee experimental setup

In Figure 4, the XCTU software demonstrates device testing, where the ZigBee network consists of
a local radio node serving as a coordinator and a remote radio node operating as a receiver. The interface
displays a graph that reveals the RSSI levels over a certain period for both remote and local devices,
indicating an existing communication signal due to continuous RSSI readings. This software records the
number of data packets transmitted and received, along with the RSSI readings, providing a measurable
criterion for analysis. Below the RSSI plot, additional bar graphs show the signal strength in dBm for both
local and remote modules and the packet success rate during ZigBee range testing, which demonstrates the
efficiency of the link between the two nodes.

Figure 4. XCTU software interface for ZigBee range testing

The model tested, as depicted in Figure 5, evaluates the RSSI for a ZigBee network in an indoor
environment. This experiment specifically focuses on inter-floor communication within designated test areas.
It involves a signal reception point with an XBee coordinator located on the 10 th floor and an XBee end
device acting as a transmitter. The transmitter's position varies, with interpolated tests extending from the 10th
floor down to the 9th and 8th floors, respectively. The objective is to ascertain the effective transmission range
of the system. For this purpose, ZigBee end device nodes were strategically placed throughout the building,
including in central areas and the most remote corners, creating a total of eight distinct test points. The RSSI
values were meticulously measured and recorded at these reference sensor nodes. Additionally, for the LoRa
testing, the experimental setup was adjusted to include longer distances between floors compared to the
ZigBee test, communicating from the 10th floor down to the 7th and 4th floors. The LoRa test diagram is
shown in Figure 6.

Int J Reconfigurable & Embedded Syst, Vol. 14, No. 1, March 2025: 165-175
Int J Reconfigurable & Embedded Syst ISSN: 2089-4864  169

Figure 5. Schematic diagram of ZigBee test setup Figure 6. Schematic diagram of LoRa test setup
with RSSI measurement using XCTU software with RSSI measurement using Arduino software

2.2. Long range experimental setup

The receiver is set to a frequency of 433 MHz. Data packets with time-counting details are formed
at the transmitter. The transmitter module sends packets every second to maintain a consistent data flow.
Arduino monitoring software on a laptop collects real-time data. This software assists in collecting RSSI and
packet reception data. Data collection during experiments is facilitated by its UI. The software logs RSSI and
packet reception status for post-experiment analysis. Figure 7 shows the software monitoring setup for both
normal and error-and-loss cases. Figure 7(a) shows successful packet reception with stable RSSI, while
Figure 7(b) displays packet errors and data loss.

(a) (b)

Figure 7. Serial monitor outputs of (a) successful packet reception with stable RSSI readings and (b) packet
reception with errors indicative of data loss, using Arduino monitoring software

2.3. Narrowband internet of thing experimental setup

Our experiment aims to rigorously assess the performance of NB-IoT technology in urban building
environments. We strategically placed NB-IoT devices at nine different points within a building, distributed
across three levels: base (1st floor), middle (5th floor), and top (10th floor). This setup is designed to gather
extensive data across various elevations, providing a comprehensive understanding of NB-IoT's effectiveness
in urban contexts. Central to our study is measuring two key parameters: RSSI and PLR within the NB-IoT
network. We used the Magellan website interface for NB-IoT range testing, as shown in Figure 8, which
features a “Graph History” section for tracking and graphically representing RSSI and packet loss over time.
Figure 9 illustrates our methodology, which involved tools like Google Maps and the cell tower
application to evaluate the impact of distance from the base station and building floor levels on NB-IoT
performance. Consistently using the same mobile service provider for the NB-IoT device, operating in the
900 MHz band, allowed for accurate base station coordinate scanning at our test points. With the nearest
telecom base station approximately 458 meters away, this distance acted as a benchmark for our analysis.
However, the minimal variance in distance between test points (±20 meters) suggests that these small
differences are unlikely to significantly affect our results. This approach contrasts with that of ZigBee
technology, highlighting the unique aspects of NB-IoT deployment in urban structures. The consistency in
our data collection was further ensured by using the same location for both scanning the base station's
coordinates and testing the NB-IoT signal performance.

Comparative analysis of ZigBee, LoRa, and NB-IoT in a smart building: advantages … (Tanakorn Inthasuth)
170  ISSN: 2089-4864

Figure 8. Magellan website interface for NB-IoT range testing

Distance = 458 m
Base station

NB-IoT
device

Testbed building

TP3

TP2

TP1

Figure 9. Diagram of NB-IoT transmission testing and cell tower link scan application [source of maps:
Google map and cell tower application]

3. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

In this section, we provide a thorough assessment of the wireless performance results from our
research. This paper evaluates the RSSI and PLR using ZigBee, LoRa, and NB-IoT across various test points
(TPs) in the building.

3.1. Received signal strength indicator measuring of ZigBee cases

Table 2 presents the measurement results of RSSI and packet loss for ZigBee in an indoor scenario.
The results show that data transmission was successful from test points on the 9 th floor to the 10th floor.
These test points were located in the central corridors of the building, with the main barriers being the floors
and other ceilings. Therefore, this configuration allowed for successful data transmission from some of the
points on the 9th floor. Signal strengths varied from -65.5 to -87.5 dBm at various test points. Nodes nearer to
the XBee coordinator exhibited stronger RSSI values than those farther away. This pattern reinforces the
basic laws of signal propagation, which indicate that power decreases with increasing distance from the
source due to space loss factors.
The study established that the 9th floor had a solid and reliable communication link, with no packet
losses despite signal attenuation. In contrast, there were no signals on the 8 th floor, and the packet loss rate
was 100% at each measurement point. The sudden drop in signal could imply that it was interrupted by
various building barriers, which accumulated and ultimately caused attenuation or exceeded a critical
distance threshold. This result suggests that although ZigBee can maintain signal integrity across multiple
levels in this building structure, its effective distance is limited. The lack of data on the 8 th floor demonstrates
that there is a need to apply mesh networking by ZigBee to extend the network and repeat signals to cope
with these constraints.

Int J Reconfigurable & Embedded Syst, Vol. 14, No. 1, March 2025: 165-175
Int J Reconfigurable & Embedded Syst ISSN: 2089-4864  171

Table 2. The datasets of ZigBee range test

Floor (test point) 𝑅𝑆𝑆𝐼 (dBm) ̅̅̅̅̅̅
𝑅𝑆𝑆𝐼
𝑃𝐿𝑅 (%)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 (dBm)
Floor10 (1) -65 -64 -64 -65 -66 -67 -67 -66 -65 -66 -65.5 0
Floor10 (2) -73 -75 -75 -73 -76 -77 -70 -70 -73 -73 -73.5 0
Floor9 (3) -85 -84 -84 -85 -84 -84 -84 -84 -84 -84 -84.2 0
Floor9 (4) -86 -89 -87 -86 -89 -86 -88 -89 -87 -88 -87.5 0
Floor9 (5) -74 -74 -74 -74 -74 -74 -74 -74 -73 -74 -73.9 0
Floor8 (6) N/A N/A 100
Floor8 (7) N/A N/A 100
Floor8 (8) N/A N/A 100

3.2. Received signal strength indicator measuring of long range cases

This experiment aimed to assess the indoor wireless transmission capabilities of LoRa technology in
a seven-story building (4th to 10th floors), considering signal penetration through structural obstacles such as
walls and ceilings. We added two-gain antennas (-4 and 2 dBi) to compare performance. This setup was
similar to the ZigBee experiment, but the test involved a modified floor plan.
Tables 3 and 4 present the RSSI measurements and packet loss percentages at different test points
within the building, using two different antenna gains from element14 site [22]. To determine the
performance of LoRa in cases of power attenuation and interference, it is essential to compare LoRa’s
performance with different antenna gains. With an antenna gain of -4 dBi, LoRa could transmit through up to
6 floors, with RSSI values between -72 and -102.5 dBm, which demonstrates extensive coverage.
Nevertheless, when the antenna gain was set to -4 dBi, a high level of packet loss was observed, especially as
the signal moved over greater distances or through thicker objects. On the contrary, when the antenna gain
was changed to 2 dBi, LoRa showed good performance in terms of strength and signaling reliability, with
RSSI values between -62.1 and -103.6 dBm. Such emphasis highlights the importance of antenna
arrangements in improving signal permeability and overall communication dependability in complex
environments.

Table 3. The datasets of LoRa range test (antenna gain=-4 dBi)

Floor (test point) 𝑅𝑆𝑆𝐼 (dBm) ̅̅̅̅̅̅
𝑅𝑆𝑆𝐼
𝑃𝐿𝑅 (%)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 (dBm)
Floor10 (1) -72 -69 -73 -75 -72 -72 -73 -73 -72 -75 -72.6 0
Floor10 (2) -83 -82 -82 -79 -78 -82 -83 -84 -83 -83 -81.9 0
Floor7 (3) -103 -103 -103 -104 -103 -103 -103 -100 -103 -104 -102.9 0
Floor7 (4) -106 -103 -107 -106 -106 -106 -106 -107 -106 -106 -105.9 0
Floor7 (5) -107 -103 -107 N/A -106 -107 -107 -103 -107 -103 -105.6 10
Floor4 (6) -103 N/A N/A N/A -101 -107 -107 -107 N/A N/A -105.0 50
Floor4 (7) N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 100
Floor4 (8) N/A N/A N/A N/A -101 -101 N/A N/A -102 -106 -102.5 60

Table 4. The datasets of LoRa range test (antenna gain=2 dBi)

Floor (test point) 𝑅𝑆𝑆𝐼 (dBm) ̅̅̅̅̅̅
𝑅𝑆𝑆𝐼
𝑃𝐿𝑅 (%)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 (dBm)
Floor10 (1) -63 -63 -62 -63 -62 -62 -59 -63 -62 -62 -62.1 0
Floor10 (2) -77 -79 -79 -82 -78 -80 -80 -80 -80 -80 -79.5 0
Floor7 (3) -95 -94 -95 -95 -95 -91 -95 -96 -95 -95 -94.6 0
Floor7 (4) -102 -102 -102 -99 -102 -103 -102 -99 -102 -101 -101.4 0
Floor7 (5) -103 -101 -102 -102 -102 -103 -103 -103 -97 -103 -101.9 0
Floor4 (6) -102 -102 -102 -102 -101 -101 -102 -102 -102 -102 -101.8 0
Floor4 (7) N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A -99 -104 N/A -104 N/A -102.3 70
Floor4 (8) -104 -104 -104 -104 -104 -104 -104 -104 -100 -104 -103.6 0

3.3. Received signal strength indicator measuring of narrowband internet of things cases
In this part, we cover NB-IoT range testing, demonstrating the full potential of the technology to
transmit data across all the major floors of the testbed building (1 st, 5th, and 10th floors). On the 1st floor, as
can be seen from Table 5, despite the low RSSI value caused by obstructions in the building structure, NB-
IoT experienced no packet loss and the transmission was not interrupted. This proves its great reliability in
the indoor environment. The ability to continue receiving RSSI signal data across different floors and the
absence of reported packet loss demonstrate NB-IoT as a robust technology that can overcome physical
obstacles in building areas with reliability and effectiveness in operation. The weak signal on the 1st floor is

Comparative analysis of ZigBee, LoRa, and NB-IoT in a smart building: advantages … (Tanakorn Inthasuth)
172  ISSN: 2089-4864

probably due to signal attenuation close to the building's structural elements. The technology's performance
was not compromised, indicating that the signals had a well-penetrating character and that the technology can
be applied in complex urban settings.

Table 5. The datasets of NB-IoT range test

𝑅𝑆𝑆𝐼 (dBm) ̅̅̅̅̅̅
𝑅𝑆𝑆𝐼
Floor (test point) 𝑃𝐿𝑅 (%)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 (dBm)
Floor10 (1) -61 -63 -63 -63 -63 -63 -61 -61 -61 -63 -62.2 0
Floor10 (2) -55 -57 -55 -55 -57 -55 -57 -55 -55 -55 -55.6 0
Floor10 (3) -65 -63 -65 -63 -65 -65 -65 -65 -65 -67 -64.8 0
Floor5 (4) -65 -65 -65 -67 -67 -65 -63 -65 -65 -65 -65.2 0
Floor5 (5) -65 -65 -65 -65 -65 -65 -65 -65 -65 -67 -65.2 0
Floor5 (6) -59 -61 -67 -69 -61 -61 -61 -61 -61 -63 -62.4 0
Floor1 (7) -73 -77 -73 -73 -75 -75 -73 -73 -73 -73 -73.8 0
Floor1 (8) -73 -75 -75 -73 -75 -75 -75 -75 -75 -75 -74.6 0
Floor1 (9) -71 -71 -71 -71 -67 -69 -69 -69 -69 -69 -69.6 0

3.4. Wireless technologies comparison

This section presents a conclusive comparison of various wireless protocol performances within a
multi-story office building environment, integrating data from sections 3.1 to 3.3. Our analysis thoroughly
explores the capabilities of different wireless technologies, such as ZigBee and LoRa, to overcome power
losses, obstacles, and interference typical in urban settings. In (3) defines d as:

𝑑 = √𝑥 2 + 𝑦 2 (3)

where d is the distance between the wireless transmitter and receiver, x represents the horizontal distance
across the building, and y represents the vertical distance between the floors within the building. The
exposition in Table 6 demonstrates the effectiveness of ZigBee in scenarios where range is tested. It confirms
that ZigBee can maintain high data transmission even with physical obstacles such as walls and floors.
According to the data in this table, there is no packet loss over various distances and environmental
conditions, indicating consistent and robust signal strength.
Table 7 also does a thorough analysis of the range test outcomes, proving the functionality of the
LoRa technology in long distance communication and in multi-story buildings. The analysis delves deeply
into a signal strength transmission studying using antennas having gain -4 and 2 dBi. The outcomes indicate
that at higher distances and passing more floors fores using the -4 dBi antenna, the rate of packet loss
increases, while the 2 dBi antenna configuration yields significantly better performance.
Table 8 highlights NB-IoT's ability to deliver strong signals across distances up to 458 meters
without any data loss, showcasing its reliable coverage in dense urban environments and effective signal
penetration in multi-story buildings, even amidst the complexities of urban infrastructure. Figure 10 shows
that comparing ZigBee, LoRa, and NB-IoT technologies leads to fundamental conclusions about their
capabilities and limitations in a multi-storied building scenario. In Figure 10(a), ZigBee exhibits a strong and
stable signal for indoor applications, with only a slight decrease in strength over distance. However, it is
suitable for short- to medium-range communication between two floors. As illustrated in Figure 10(b), the
adjustable antenna gains of LoRa allow more signal penetration and dependability in such complex urban
environments. The resultant RSSI values also indicate the effect of differential impact on signal quality
owing to various antenna gains that support prior findings by Artur et al. [23]. In Figure 10(c), we see NB-
IoT, characterized by a stable signal and no packet loss. This result agrees with [24], [25], which state that
NB-IoT enables the maintenance of highly resilient communications within vast metropolitan areas. It is
essential for the reliability of applications where comprehensive coverage and deep propagation into dense
structures are required.

Table 6. The result summary of ZigBee range test

Floor No. cross-floor Distance ̅̅̅̅̅̅
𝑅𝑆𝑆𝐼 𝑃𝐿𝑅 (%)
(test point) (m) (dBm)
Floor10 (1) 0 20.0 -65.5 0
Floor10 (2) 0 40.0 -73.5 0
Floor9 (3) 1 4.0 -84.2 0
Floor9 (4) 1 20.4 -87.5 0
Floor9 (5) 1 40.2 -73.9 0

Int J Reconfigurable & Embedded Syst, Vol. 14, No. 1, March 2025: 165-175
Int J Reconfigurable & Embedded Syst ISSN: 2089-4864  173

Table 7. The result summary of LoRa range test

Floor (test point) No. cross-floor Distance (m) -4dBi 2dBi
̅̅̅̅̅̅
𝑅𝑆𝑆𝐼 (dBm) 𝑃𝐿𝑅 (%) ̅̅̅̅̅̅
𝑅𝑆𝑆𝐼 (dBm) 𝑃𝐿𝑅 (%)
Floor10 (1) 0 20.0 -72.6 0 -62.1 0
Floor10 (2) 0 40.0 -81.9 0 -79.5 0
Floor7 (3) 3 12.0 -102.9 0 -94.6 0
Floor7 (4) 3 23.3 -105.9 0 -101.4 0
Floor7 (5) 3 41.8 -105.6 10 -101.9 0
Floor4 (6) 6 24.0 -105.0 50 -101.8 0
Floor4 (7) 6 31.2 N/A 100 -102.3 70
Floor4 (8) 6 46.6 -102.5 60 -103.6 0

Table 8. The result summary of NB-IoT range test

Floor (test point) No. cross-floor Distance (m) ̅̅̅̅̅̅ (dBm)
𝑅𝑆𝑆𝐼 𝑃𝐿𝑅 (%)
Floor10 (1) -62.2 0
Floor10 (2) -55.6 0
Floor10 (3) -64.8 0
Floor5 (4) -65.2 0
458 m
Floor5 (5) N/A -65.2 0
(Approxmated)
Floor5 (6) -62.4 0
Floor1 (7) -73.8 0
Floor1 (8) -74.6 0
Floor1 (9) -69.6 0
RSSI (dBm)

(a)
RSSI (dBm)

(b)
RSSI (dBm)

(c)

Figure 10. Comparative analysis of RSSI measurements and packet loss percentages across test points for
(a) ZigBee, (b) LoRa, and (c) NB-IoT technologies

Comparative analysis of ZigBee, LoRa, and NB-IoT in a smart building: advantages … (Tanakorn Inthasuth)
174  ISSN: 2089-4864

4. CONCLUSION
This paper evaluates ZigBee, LoRa, and NB-IoT for smart buildings in multi-story office-residential
spaces. ZigBee ensures reliable communication over moderate distances, ideal for dense sensor networks.
LoRa, with its adjustable antenna gains, adapts to complex environments, ensuring signal penetration across
multiple floors. NB-IoT offers broad coverage and robust signal strength, suitable for urban settings with
dense structures. In practical tests, ZigBee adapts to sensor-dense environments, LoRa overcomes structural
barriers in multi-floor scenarios, and NB-IoT maintains connectivity in urban spaces with high material
density. Our analysis uses RSSI and packet loss metrics to highlight the necessity of choosing the right
technology based on the environment for efficient smart building network design. The findings demonstrate
scalability potential from ZigBee’s short-range proficiency to LoRa’s extensive reach and NB-IoT’s urban
connectivity guiding IoT integration in urban infrastructures. This is crucial for smart city advancements,
suggesting future research to enhance multi-floor communications by combining these technologies for
improved wireless link performance.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors thank the Faculty of Engineering at Rajamangala University of Technology Srivijaya
for providing the test location and the students who assisted with the trials.

REFERENCES
[1] L. R. Suzuki, “Smart cities IoT: enablers and technology road map,” in Springer Optimization and Its Applications, vol. 125,
2017, pp. 167–190. doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-61313-0_10.
[2] N. S. Chilamkurthy, O. J. Pandey, A. Ghosh, L. R. Cenkeramaddi, and H. N. Dai, “Low-power wide-area networks: a broad
overview of its different aspects,” IEEE Access, vol. 10, pp. 81926–81959, 2022, doi: 10.1109/ACCESS.2022.3196182.
[3] V. L. Nguyen, P. C. Lin, and R. H. Hwang, “Energy depletion attacks in low power wireless networks,” IEEE Access, vol. 7, pp.
51915–51932, 2019, doi: 10.1109/ACCESS.2019.2911424.
[4] M. A. Albreem, A. M. Sheikh, M. H. Alsharif, M. Jusoh, and M. N. Mohd Yasin, “Green internet of things (GIoT): applications,
practices, awareness, and challenges,” IEEE Access, vol. 9, pp. 38833–38858, 2021, doi: 10.1109/ACCESS.2021.3061697.
[5] A. Khalifeh, F. Mazunga, A. Nechibvute, and B. M. Nyambo, “Microcontroller unit-based wireless sensor network nodes: a
review,” Sensors, vol. 22, no. 22, 2022, doi: 10.3390/s22228937.
[6] H. A. H. Alobaidy, J. S. Mandeep, R. Nordin, and N. F. Abdullah, “A review on ZigBee based WSNs: Concepts, infrastructure,
applications, and challenges, ” International Journal of Electrical and Electronic Engineering & Telecommunications, vol. 9, no.
3, pp. 189-198, May 2020. doi: 10.18178/ijeetc.9.3.189-198.
[7] J. S. Lee, Y. W. Su, and C. C. Shen, “A comparative study of wireless protocols: Bluetooth, UWB, ZigBee, and Wi-Fi,” IECON
Proceedings (Industrial Electronics Conference), pp. 46–51, 2007, doi: 10.1109/IECON.2007.4460126.
[8] K. Sureeya and T. Inthasuth, “Packet traffic measurement of IEEE1888 write procedure between ZigBee gateway and storage for
building energy management system,” in 34th International Technical Conference on Circuits/Systems, Computers and
Communications, ITC-CSCC 2019, IEEE, Jun. 2019, pp. 1–4. doi: 10.1109/ITC-CSCC.2019.8793437.
[9] T. Inthasuth, P. Uarchoojitt, W. Boonsong, and N. Kaewthong, “Time-based performance analysis of narrowband internet of
things (NB-IoT) for particulate matter monitoring system,” in 2023 International Conference on Electronics, Information, and
Communication, ICEIC 2023, IEEE, Feb. 2023, pp. 1–4. doi: 10.1109/ICEIC57457.2023.10049930.
[10] P. Uarchoojitt, S. Pothongkham, T. Kongnarong, W. Boonsong, C. Samakee, and T. Inthasuth, “The communication link analysis
of ZigBee mesh networks using received signal strength indicator (RSSI) for the agricultural slope environment,” in 2023
International Conference on Electronics, Information, and Communication, ICEIC 2023, IEEE, Feb. 2023, pp. 1–4. doi:
10.1109/ICEIC57457.2023.10049953.
[11] T. A. Al-Amiedy, M. Anbar, B. Belaton, A. A. Bahashwan, I. H. Hasbullah, M. A. Aladaileh, and G. A. Mukhaini, “A systematic
literature review on attacks defense mechanisms in RPL-based 6LoWPAN of internet of things,” Internet of Things, vol. 22, p.
100741, 2023. doi: 10.1016/j.iot.2023.100741.
[12] Y. Li, X. Cheng, Y. Cao, D. Wang, and L. Yang, “Smart choice for the smart grid: narrowband internet of things (NB-IoT),”
IEEE Internet of Things Journal, vol. 5, no. 3, pp. 1505–1515, Jun. 2018, doi: 10.1109/JIOT.2017.2781251.
[13] N. Ahmad, A. Hussain, I. Ullah, and B. H. Zaidi, “IoT based wireless sensor network for precision agriculture,” in IEECON 2019-
7th International Electrical Engineering Congress, Proceedings, IEEE, Mar. 2019, pp. 1–4. doi:
10.1109/iEECON45304.2019.8938854.
[14] A. C. Subrata, T. Sutikno, Sunardi, A. Pamungkas, W. Arsadiando, and A. R. C. Baswara, “A laboratory scale IoT-based
measuring of the solar photovoltaic parameters,” International Journal of Reconfigurable and Embedded Systems (IJRES), vol.
11, no. 2, pp. 135–145, Jul. 2022, doi: 10.11591/ijres.v11.i2.pp135-145.
[15] G. Beniwal and A. Singhrova, “A systematic literature review on IoT gateways,” Journal of King Saud University - Computer and
Information Sciences, vol. 34, no. 10, pp. 9541–9563, 2022, doi: 10.1016/j.jksuci.2021.11.007.
[16] A. Pagano, D. Croce, I. Tinnirello, and G. Vitale, “A survey on LoRa for smart agriculture: current trends and future
perspectives,” IEEE Internet of Things Journal, vol. 10, no. 4, pp. 3664–3679, Feb. 2023, doi: 10.1109/JIOT.2022.3230505.
[17] B. E. Narasimhayya and R. Lanke, “The smart development of short range communication protocol development in efficient
device discovery,” in 2nd IEEE International Conference on Distributed Computing and Electrical Circuits and Electronics,
ICDCECE 2023, IEEE, Apr. 2023, pp. 1–7. doi: 10.1109/ICDCECE57866.2023.10151263.
[18] “Digi XBee RF modules,” Digi International, [Online]. Available: https://www.digi.com/products/embedded-systems/digi-
xbee/rf-modules, (Accessed: Dec. 23, 2023).
[19] A. Bunsiri, T. Inthasuth, and W. Boonsong, “Packet delivery measurement between narrowband internet of things devices and
cloud platform,” in 2023 International Technical Conference on Circuits/Systems, Computers, and Communications, ITC-CSCC

Int J Reconfigurable & Embedded Syst, Vol. 14, No. 1, March 2025: 165-175
Int J Reconfigurable & Embedded Syst ISSN: 2089-4864  175

2023, 2023. doi: 10.1109/ITC-CSCC58803.2023.10212889.

[20] Z. Liu, Y. Li, L. Zhao, R. Liang, and P. Wang, “Comparative evaluation of the performance of ZigBee and LoRa wireless
networks in building environment, ” Electronics, vol. 11, no. 21, pp. 3560, 2022, doi: 10.3390/electronics11213560.
[21] F. U. Khan, M. Awais, M. B. Rasheed, B. Masood, and Y. Ghadi, “A comparison of wireless standards in iot for indoor
localization using LoPy,” IEEE Access, vol. 9, pp. 65925–65933, 2021, doi: 10.1109/ACCESS.2021.3076371.
[22] “Element14,” Element14, [Online]. Available: www.element14.com, (Accessed: Dec. 23, 2023).
[23] A. F. Artur, J. D. F. Silveira, M. C. L. Moura, J. V. D. Reis, R. A. L. Rabelo, and J. J. P. C. Rodrigues, “Performance analysis of
LoRaWAN in an air quality monitoring applications for smart cities,” in 2021 6th International Conference on Smart and
Sustainable Technologies, SpliTech 2021, IEEE, Sep. 2021, pp. 1–6. doi: 10.23919/SpliTech52315.2021.9566392.
[24] N. Poddar, S. Z. Khan, J. Mass, and S. N. Srirama, “Coverage analysis of NB-IoT and Sigfox: two estonian university campuses
as a case study,” in 2020 International Wireless Communications and Mobile Computing, IWCMC 2020, IEEE, Jun. 2020, pp.
1491–1497. doi: 10.1109/IWCMC48107.2020.9148570.
[25] H. Malik et al., “NB-IoT network field trial: indoor, outdoor and underground coverage campaign,” in 2019 15th International
Wireless Communications and Mobile Computing Conference, IWCMC 2019, IEEE, Jun. 2019, pp. 537–542. doi:
10.1109/IWCMC.2019.8766568.

BIOGRAPHIES OF AUTHORS

Tanakorn Inthasuth received his B.Eng. degree in telecommunication

engineerings (2011) at King Mongkut's Institute of Technology Ladkrabang, Thailand, and his
M.Eng. in electrical engineering (2014) at Chulalongkorn University, Thailand. He is full-time
lecturer at Telecommunication Engineering Program, Rajamangala University of Technology
Srivijaya, Thailand. His research lines are the IoT and embedded. He is a member of Institute
of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE). He can be contacted at email:
[email protected].

Yongyut Kaewjumras was born on 1989, Thailand. He is currently a lecturer in

marine engineering at the Rajamangala University of Technology Srivijaya, Thailand. He
received D.Eng. degree in electrical engineering (2018), M.Eng. degree in microelectronics
(2013) and B.Sc. degree in applied physics (2010) at King Mongkut’s Institute of Technology
Ladkrabang. His scientific focus is on silicon sensors, semiconductor materials and
characterization, material sensing, and its application. He can be contacted at email:
[email protected].

Sahapong Somwong received his B.Eng., M.Eng., and Ph.D.Eng. degree in

computer engineerings at Prince of Songkla University Thailand. He is full-time lecturer at
Electronics Engineering program, Rajamangala University of Technology Srivijaya, Thailand.
His research lines are the automation system, electronics for agriculture, IoT, and microwave
sensing for agriculture. He can be contacted at email: [email protected].

Wasana Boonsong received her B.E. degree in telecommunication engineering

(2002) at the King Mongkut's Institute of Technology Ladkrabang, Thailand, M.S. degree in
technical education of electrical technology (2009) at King Mongkut'sUniversity of
Technology North Bangkok, Thailand, and Ph.D. degree in electrical and electronic
engineering (2016), University Sains Malaysia (USM), Malaysia. She is full-time a Assitance
Professor in Electrical Education Program at the Rajamangala University of Technology
Srivijaya, Thailand. Her research areas are WSN and IoT applications. She can be contacted at
email: [email protected].

Comparative analysis of ZigBee, LoRa, and NB-IoT in a smart building: advantages … (Tanakorn Inthasuth)