Comparison and Extension of Existing 3D Propagation Models with Real-World Effects Based on Ray-Tracing

Network design and planning of wireless embedded systems for industrial automation

“…2b we analyze the successful connection probability P S (i.e., counting the number of successfully acknowledged data frames) for varying SIR (4) assuming full overlapping η ≥ 0.5 (channels [11][12][13][14] and bursty WiFi traffic. The optimal threshold β I for model (4) to hold can be reasonably set to β I = 15 dB. As confirmed from (6), the use of channels experiencing η ≥ 0.5 must be avoided by blacklisting (when possible) for SIR < 15 dB.…”

“…These tools provide indeed a very high realism but they often incur in significant (an in some cases prohibitive) computational costs. Despite many successful case studies that motivated the use of these tools for indoor and urban areas [3], also tailored to cellular networks [4] and mobile ad-hoc and mesh networks (MANET) [5], in many cases the deployment layout is described by small-size CAD files characterized by a simplified data-base. Instead, the use of ray tracing based tools could not be considered as a practically viable solution when applied to highly complex industrial environments characterized by dense obstacles with complex configurations (e.g., dense pipe racks, instrument cabling, valve access platform, vessel/tank systems etc.).…”

“…The proposed relay placement algorithm takes as input any network corresponding to a deployment of an arbitrary number N of FDs (comprising of the Gateway) in a random industrial field characterized by an arbitrary number of link types with connectivity modeled as in (1). Relay placement algorithm first identifies disconnected (or weakly connected) network structures of graph G and then iteratively choose the best R ≤ M relays among M > N candidate relay positions 4 to connect those components with the GW node.…”

“…9. Here we tackled the problem of reinforcing connectivity focusing on the weakly connected sub-graph G s ⊂ G of FDs (1)(2)(3)(4). Remaining nodes are not considered as critical being connected to the GW by LOS type links (of Types I, II and III) with predicted LQI (1) larger than −58 dBm for all cases and P S ∼ 0.99.…”

“…Since μ ≥ β/β I = −100 dBm with threshold β I modeled as in (6), then connection probability is ruled by SIR according to (4). While LOS Type I, II, III links are marginally influenced by the additional interference, for NLOS Type IV, V links unreliable connectivity is observed with P S ∼ 0.47.…”