Design of smart home environment monitoring system based on raspberry Pi

Author(s):  
Xinlong Wen ◽  
Yunliang Wang
2014 ◽  
Vol 945-949 ◽  
pp. 2693-2697
Author(s):  
Jia Huang ◽  
Ye Chen Yang ◽  
Xiao Dong Zhai ◽  
Chen Yang

This paper has designed a smart-home environment monitoring system. The System is based on ZigBee technology establishing wireless sensor network , using the SCM of CC2530 RF as the solutions to the system of the ZigBee technology, achieving parameter detection of multi-environment, and controlling the receive and dispatch of signals . Meanwhile, the system uses LD3320 voice chip, take the use of (non-specific) voice recognition technology to accept and control signal, realizing voice control for home appliances. And the distribution of the system is flexible and can change any monitoring points and monitor objects. It has good scalability and stability and can be used in various occasions for environmental monitoring.


2019 ◽  
Vol 31 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Tongai Chiridza ◽  
Janet Wesson ◽  
Dieter Vogts

Elderly people prefer to live independently despite being vulnerable to age-related challenges. Constant monitoring is required in cases where the elderly are living alone. The home environment can be a dangerous environment for the elderly due to adverse events that can occur at any time. The potential risks for the elderly living independently can be categorised as injury in the home, home environmental risks, and inactivity due to unconsciousness. The aim of this paper is to discuss the development of a low-cost Smart Home Environment (SHE) that can support risk and safety monitoring for the elderly living independently. An unobtrusive and low cost SHE prototype that uses a Raspberry Pi 3 model B, a Microsoft Kinect Sensor and an Aeotec 4-in-1 Multisensor was designed and implemented. An experimental evaluation was conducted to determine the accuracy with which the prototype SHE detected abnormal events. The results show that the prototype has a mean accuracy, sensitivity and specificity of 94%, 96.92% and 88.93% respectively. The sensitivity shows that the chance of the prototype missing a risk situation is 3.08%, and the specificity shows that the chance of incorrectly classifying a non-risk situation is 11.07%.


2019 ◽  
Vol 36 (1) ◽  
pp. 203-224 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mario A. Paredes‐Valverde ◽  
Giner Alor‐Hernández ◽  
Jorge L. García‐Alcaráz ◽  
María del Pilar Salas‐Zárate ◽  
Luis O. Colombo‐Mendoza ◽  
...  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document