Academia.eduAcademia.edu

Outline

Title
Abstract
FAQs
Figures
Introduction
Short Range Mac Layer Protocols
Long Range Mac Layer Protocols
Lora-Long Range Protocol
Discussion and Open Issues
Short Range Protocols
Long Range Protocols
Conclusions
References
All Topics
Computer Science
Computer Networks

MAC Layer Protocols for Internet of Things: A Survey

Profile image of Victor AlbuquerqueVictor Albuquerque

2019, Future Internet

https://doi.org/10.3390/FI11010016
visibility

…

description

42 pages

link

1 file

Abstract

Due to the wide variety of uses and the diversity of features required to meet an application, Internet of Things (IoT) technologies are moving forward at a strong pace to meet this demand while at the same time trying to meet the time-to-market of these applications. The characteristics required by applications, such as coverage area, scalability, transmission data rate, and applicability, refer to the Physical and Medium Access Control (MAC) layer designs of protocols. This paper presents a deep study of medium access control (MAC) layer protocols that are used in IoT with a detailed description of such protocols grouped (by short and long distance coverage). For short range coverage protocols, the following are considered: Radio Frequency Identification (RFID), Near Field Communication (NFC), Bluetooth IEEE 802.15.1, Bluetooth Low Energy, IEEE 802.15.4, Wireless Highway Addressable Remote Transducer Protocol (Wireless-HART), Z-Wave, Weightless, and IEEE 802.11 a/b/g/n/ah. For the...

FAQs

sparkles

AI

What defines the efficiency of MAC layer protocols for IoT applications?add

The paper reveals that protocol efficiency is influenced by characteristics like transmission power, data rates, and energy consumption, exemplified by protocols like LTE CAT-M achieving lower power usage for IoT deployments.

How do different MAC protocols compare in terms of range and data rates?add

MAC layer protocols show diversity in range, where LP-WANs like LoRa and NB-IoT support over 15 km coverage, while short-range protocols commonly max out at 1 km.

What role does power consumption play in MAC layer protocol selection?add

Protocols such as Bluetooth Low Energy (BLE) exhibit low power consumption, with operational efficiencies allowing devices to last up to 10 years, making them suitable for battery-powered IoT applications.

How does the IEEE 802.11 protocol evolve to adapt to IoT demands?add

The study shows that IEEE 802.11ah integrates low power and long-range capabilities, achieving a 24 dB gain in link budget, designed specifically for M2M communications.

What are the main open research issues identified in the comparison of MAC protocols?add

Challenges like inter-protocol roaming, security variations, and the influence of coexistence among technologies in the same spectrum are highlighted as critical areas for future study.

Figures (23)
Figure 1. RFID standards for short distance applications [10].
Figure 1. RFID standards for short distance applications [10].
Figure 2. NFC passive to active device communication protocol stack. On the physical layer of NFC, RF communication data rates are 106, 212, 424 as well as 848 Kbps depending on the combination of modulation and code techniques used. The available modulation schemes are ASK (Amplitude Shift Keying) using 10% or 100% modulation depth, Non-Return-to-Zero functionalities [18]. Level (NRZ-L), Binary Phase Shift Keying (BPSK) and Manchester or Modified Miller coding are used for the data transfer. The International Organization for Standardization (ISO), International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC), and Federal Communications Commission (FCC) regulate the transmission power to be 20 or 23 dBm according to region [23-26]. also responsible for connection handling, message exchange, emulation modes, anti-collision bit transmission, activation procedures, data transport, and others. Figures 2 and 3 illustrate these The NFC MAC layer is
Figure 2. NFC passive to active device communication protocol stack. On the physical layer of NFC, RF communication data rates are 106, 212, 424 as well as 848 Kbps depending on the combination of modulation and code techniques used. The available modulation schemes are ASK (Amplitude Shift Keying) using 10% or 100% modulation depth, Non-Return-to-Zero functionalities [18]. Level (NRZ-L), Binary Phase Shift Keying (BPSK) and Manchester or Modified Miller coding are used for the data transfer. The International Organization for Standardization (ISO), International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC), and Federal Communications Commission (FCC) regulate the transmission power to be 20 or 23 dBm according to region [23-26]. also responsible for connection handling, message exchange, emulation modes, anti-collision bit transmission, activation procedures, data transport, and others. Figures 2 and 3 illustrate these The NFC MAC layer is
Figure 3. NFC active to passive device communication protocol stack. 2.3. Bluetooth IEEE 802.15.1
Figure 3. NFC active to passive device communication protocol stack. 2.3. Bluetooth IEEE 802.15.1
Figure 4. Mapping of OSI reference model to IEEE 802.15.1 Bluetooth stack. IEEE 802.15.1 standard.
Figure 4. Mapping of OSI reference model to IEEE 802.15.1 Bluetooth stack. IEEE 802.15.1 standard.
Figure 5. Bluetooth power class classification. The Base-band Layer defined by the IEEE 802.15.1 standard operates in the 2.4-GHz Industrial Scientific and Medical transceiver. The Radio channels spaced of 1M. This FHSS technique in of nearby sys a different ho The radio link which reaches up to to its power c power, and, based on these values, according to t and the Base-band sub- Hz, using a frequency ho creases the robustness of tems that p frequency, simulating full-dup ISM) band using a short-range radio link and a pping spread spectrum ( may operate in the same frequency range. A 1 transmission scheme is specified to divide the c he list in Figure 5. fast frequency-hopping (FFH) ayers define the Bluetooth physical layer. The Radio layer provides the physical links among Bluetooth devices with 79 dif ferent Radio Frequency (RF) FHSS) transmission technique. the link due to its capability to reduce the interference fime Division Duplex (TDD) hannel into time slots of 625 ts each, corresponding to ex communication in the same transmission channel. 00 m with LOS is obtained using the nominal power according ass and the irradiating system used. Three output power classes divide the Bluetooth Basis Rate protocol devices. Each class is characterized by a maximum power and a minimum output the distance within which the device can communicate is defined
Figure 5. Bluetooth power class classification. The Base-band Layer defined by the IEEE 802.15.1 standard operates in the 2.4-GHz Industrial Scientific and Medical transceiver. The Radio channels spaced of 1M. This FHSS technique in of nearby sys a different ho The radio link which reaches up to to its power c power, and, based on these values, according to t and the Base-band sub- Hz, using a frequency ho creases the robustness of tems that p frequency, simulating full-dup ISM) band using a short-range radio link and a pping spread spectrum ( may operate in the same frequency range. A 1 transmission scheme is specified to divide the c he list in Figure 5. fast frequency-hopping (FFH) ayers define the Bluetooth physical layer. The Radio layer provides the physical links among Bluetooth devices with 79 dif ferent Radio Frequency (RF) FHSS) transmission technique. the link due to its capability to reduce the interference fime Division Duplex (TDD) hannel into time slots of 625 ts each, corresponding to ex communication in the same transmission channel. 00 m with LOS is obtained using the nominal power according ass and the irradiating system used. Three output power classes divide the Bluetooth Basis Rate protocol devices. Each class is characterized by a maximum power and a minimum output the distance within which the device can communicate is defined
data communication between L2CAP devices. Some CIDs are reserved for the L2CAP layer as a logical channel required to meet Bluetooth standards and is reserved for signaling purposes. Connectionless channels support ‘group’ or multi-point communication, while connection-oriented channels are dedicated to peer-to-peer connections only [29]. Figure 6 elucidates the data channelization, links and transport structure. Bluetooth relies on the contention-free token-based multi-access networks as logical topology End point devices are mentioned as s aves. A cluster of up to seven slave devices can be attached to a master device, in order to have access to the channel, composing a pico-net cellular topology The master is responsible to manage access the channel and transmit its da the polling process messages to authorize a slave device to a. These features increase the range to more than 100 m with a LOS path in an outdoor environment also increasing its indoor environment range to about 40 m The utilization of beacons as sense mec the communication performance. hanisms and the larger message capacity of 255 bytes improves
data communication between L2CAP devices. Some CIDs are reserved for the L2CAP layer as a logical channel required to meet Bluetooth standards and is reserved for signaling purposes. Connectionless channels support ‘group’ or multi-point communication, while connection-oriented channels are dedicated to peer-to-peer connections only [29]. Figure 6 elucidates the data channelization, links and transport structure. Bluetooth relies on the contention-free token-based multi-access networks as logical topology End point devices are mentioned as s aves. A cluster of up to seven slave devices can be attached to a master device, in order to have access to the channel, composing a pico-net cellular topology The master is responsible to manage access the channel and transmit its da the polling process messages to authorize a slave device to a. These features increase the range to more than 100 m with a LOS path in an outdoor environment also increasing its indoor environment range to about 40 m The utilization of beacons as sense mec the communication performance. hanisms and the larger message capacity of 255 bytes improves
Figure 7. Bluetooth low energy protocol stack. a > a ae aD ae A Host Controller Interface (HCI) is a communication standard applied between the slave and nmtroller. In the Bluetooth Basic Rate, 79 channels are used with a 1 MHz bandwidth to reduce terference with adjacent channels. In Bluetooth Low Energy, the channels are defined in the 400-2.4835 GHz band with a 2 MHz guard band. To achieve scalability, the master device controls e number of hosts associated with it by adjusting the value of the connection interval (ConnInterval rameter) between hosts and controllers. Link layer manages events generated by the hosts, at determined time intervals, using th dvertising channels. Bidirectional data flow is obtained with a connection between element: vhen slaves advertising packets are received by master elements. The energy save handling done a MAC layer can put the slaves in a sleeping mode by default and waking them periodically throug] . Time Division Multiple Access (TDMA) scheme. In the classic Bluetooth basic protocol, this laye | stop-and-wait flow control mechanism is used to provide error recovery capabilities. At BLE, th .2CAP is an adaption of the classic Bluetooth basic pro ocol stack but optimized and simplifiec o receive the application layers designed for low energy platforms. Data exchange between th pplication layer and link layer are also done by L2CA low control mechanisms as used on the classic Bluetooth. nechanisms (present in the classic Bluetooth) and segmenta P using no retransmission techniques o Not using retransmission or flow contro tion and reassembly capabilities, the Packe ata Units (PDU) (limited to 23 bytes in BLE) received by the application layer is delivered ready to fi he maximum size of the L2CAP payload.
Figure 7. Bluetooth low energy protocol stack. a > a ae aD ae A Host Controller Interface (HCI) is a communication standard applied between the slave and nmtroller. In the Bluetooth Basic Rate, 79 channels are used with a 1 MHz bandwidth to reduce terference with adjacent channels. In Bluetooth Low Energy, the channels are defined in the 400-2.4835 GHz band with a 2 MHz guard band. To achieve scalability, the master device controls e number of hosts associated with it by adjusting the value of the connection interval (ConnInterval rameter) between hosts and controllers. Link layer manages events generated by the hosts, at determined time intervals, using th dvertising channels. Bidirectional data flow is obtained with a connection between element: vhen slaves advertising packets are received by master elements. The energy save handling done a MAC layer can put the slaves in a sleeping mode by default and waking them periodically throug] . Time Division Multiple Access (TDMA) scheme. In the classic Bluetooth basic protocol, this laye | stop-and-wait flow control mechanism is used to provide error recovery capabilities. At BLE, th .2CAP is an adaption of the classic Bluetooth basic pro ocol stack but optimized and simplifiec o receive the application layers designed for low energy platforms. Data exchange between th pplication layer and link layer are also done by L2CA low control mechanisms as used on the classic Bluetooth. nechanisms (present in the classic Bluetooth) and segmenta P using no retransmission techniques o Not using retransmission or flow contro tion and reassembly capabilities, the Packe ata Units (PDU) (limited to 23 bytes in BLE) received by the application layer is delivered ready to fi he maximum size of the L2CAP payload.
Figure 8. Bluetooth power class classification.
Figure 8. Bluetooth power class classification.
Figure 9. Bluetooth basic rate versus Bluetooth low energy.
Figure 9. Bluetooth basic rate versus Bluetooth low energy.
Figure 10. IEEE 802.15.4 maximum transmission power levels according to regions. VAHMUALLUTL, UCIIVELOU ILdaiile ACN PRIN ARONA Sy RRA, Il, GALIML ADOULIGUUOLEL/ ULSaAdodULIGUUTE GLUVIUES [OY ]- An IEEE 802.2 Logical Link Control (LLC) can access the IEEE 802.15.4 MAC sub-layer throug the Service Specific Convergence Sub-layer (SSCS). The SSCS IEEE 802.2 convergence sub-layer exists in a conceptual perspective, on the top of the MCPS (MAC Common Part Sub-layer). SSCS provides a link between the IEEE 802.2 LLC sub-layer and the IEEE 802.15.4 MCPS in the data service plane through the MCPS-SAP (MCPS-Service Access Point). On the management plane, driving the laye1 management functions, the MMLE (MAC sub-layer Management Entity) provides the service functions assembling capability through an interface between the SSCS and PHY. MMLE is also responsible for maintaining a PIB (PAN Information Base) which contains the data base of the managed objects belonging to the MAC sub-layer [3]. The IEEE 802.15.4 BE and NBE operational modes have being strongly investigated over recent years. Thus, some limitations have been addressed and the most important ones are the unbounded delay, low communication efficiency, low interference robustness, and/or fading and main powered relay nodes [39-43].
Figure 10. IEEE 802.15.4 maximum transmission power levels according to regions. VAHMUALLUTL, UCIIVELOU ILdaiile ACN PRIN ARONA Sy RRA, Il, GALIML ADOULIGUUOLEL/ ULSaAdodULIGUUTE GLUVIUES [OY ]- An IEEE 802.2 Logical Link Control (LLC) can access the IEEE 802.15.4 MAC sub-layer throug the Service Specific Convergence Sub-layer (SSCS). The SSCS IEEE 802.2 convergence sub-layer exists in a conceptual perspective, on the top of the MCPS (MAC Common Part Sub-layer). SSCS provides a link between the IEEE 802.2 LLC sub-layer and the IEEE 802.15.4 MCPS in the data service plane through the MCPS-SAP (MCPS-Service Access Point). On the management plane, driving the laye1 management functions, the MMLE (MAC sub-layer Management Entity) provides the service functions assembling capability through an interface between the SSCS and PHY. MMLE is also responsible for maintaining a PIB (PAN Information Base) which contains the data base of the managed objects belonging to the MAC sub-layer [3]. The IEEE 802.15.4 BE and NBE operational modes have being strongly investigated over recent years. Thus, some limitations have been addressed and the most important ones are the unbounded delay, low communication efficiency, low interference robustness, and/or fading and main powered relay nodes [39-43].
Figure 11. IEEE 802.15.4 compared with OSI reference model. a ee le The IEEE 802.15.4 Task Group 4e was chartered to define a MAC amendment to the standard 802.15.4-2006 in order to evolve and add important functions to the 802.15.4-206 MAC protocol to enhance MAC to PHY functionalities interaction [44]. IEEE 802.15.4e supports five new categories of MAC enhancements also called MAC behaviors: Time Slotted Channel Hopping (TSCH), Deterministic and Synchronous Multi-channel Extension (DSME), Low Latency Deterministic Network (LLDN), Asynchronous Multi-channel Adaptation (AMCA), and Radio Frequency Blink (BLINK) [45]. Some general enhancements were also included as follows: Low Energy (LE), Information Elements (IE), Enhanced Beacons (EB), Multipurpose Frame, MAC Performance Metrics, and Fast Association (FastA) mechanism [46]. Figure 11 compares IEEE 802.15.4 stack with the OSI reference model.
Figure 11. IEEE 802.15.4 compared with OSI reference model. a ee le The IEEE 802.15.4 Task Group 4e was chartered to define a MAC amendment to the standard 802.15.4-2006 in order to evolve and add important functions to the 802.15.4-206 MAC protocol to enhance MAC to PHY functionalities interaction [44]. IEEE 802.15.4e supports five new categories of MAC enhancements also called MAC behaviors: Time Slotted Channel Hopping (TSCH), Deterministic and Synchronous Multi-channel Extension (DSME), Low Latency Deterministic Network (LLDN), Asynchronous Multi-channel Adaptation (AMCA), and Radio Frequency Blink (BLINK) [45]. Some general enhancements were also included as follows: Low Energy (LE), Information Elements (IE), Enhanced Beacons (EB), Multipurpose Frame, MAC Performance Metrics, and Fast Association (FastA) mechanism [46]. Figure 11 compares IEEE 802.15.4 stack with the OSI reference model.
Figure 12. WirelessHART Protocol Stack. Differing from IEEE 802.15.4, Wireless-HART uses time-synchronized the TDMA technique combined with frequency hopping on its MAC layer, thus allowing multiple devices to transmit data at the same time along different channels. During the joining process of the devices onto networks, the network manager distributes the communication links and the channel hop patterns to the devices. It also manages the enabling or disabling of the use of channels that are frequently affected by considerable interference levels, calling this feature channels blacklist,wHart-n-802-15-4e,petersen2011wirelesshart. The eight types of devices defined on Wireless-HART are: routers, gateways, adapters, network managers, network security devices, access points and field devices on a mesh topology. All of them support the implementation of features to attend network creation, maintenance issues, data and signaling routing capability, and a minimum of reliability. A comparison between the OSI reference model and Wireless-HART protocol layers and its main features is shown in Figure 12.
Figure 12. WirelessHART Protocol Stack. Differing from IEEE 802.15.4, Wireless-HART uses time-synchronized the TDMA technique combined with frequency hopping on its MAC layer, thus allowing multiple devices to transmit data at the same time along different channels. During the joining process of the devices onto networks, the network manager distributes the communication links and the channel hop patterns to the devices. It also manages the enabling or disabling of the use of channels that are frequently affected by considerable interference levels, calling this feature channels blacklist,wHart-n-802-15-4e,petersen2011wirelesshart. The eight types of devices defined on Wireless-HART are: routers, gateways, adapters, network managers, network security devices, access points and field devices on a mesh topology. All of them support the implementation of features to attend network creation, maintenance issues, data and signaling routing capability, and a minimum of reliability. A comparison between the OSI reference model and Wireless-HART protocol layers and its main features is shown in Figure 12.
Figure 13. Z-Wave protocol stack. control technique and, based on ITU G.9959, has the following characteristics: a capacity of 232 unique network identifiers that allows the same quantity of nodes joying the network; collision avoidance mechanism; back-off time when collision occurs; reliability guaranteed by receiving acknowledgments frame validation and retransmission mechanisms. A power saving mechanism is achieved due to a sleep mode with a dedicated wake-up pattern [61,62]. Figure 13 depicts the Z-Wave protocol stack.
Figure 13. Z-Wave protocol stack. control technique and, based on ITU G.9959, has the following characteristics: a capacity of 232 unique network identifiers that allows the same quantity of nodes joying the network; collision avoidance mechanism; back-off time when collision occurs; reliability guaranteed by receiving acknowledgments frame validation and retransmission mechanisms. A power saving mechanism is achieved due to a sleep mode with a dedicated wake-up pattern [61,62]. Figure 13 depicts the Z-Wave protocol stack.
Figure 14. Weightless protocol stack. Radio Resource Manager (RRM) is present to control the traffic between an ED and its BS through ntrol Channels, using appropriate security provided by LL. The messages that control and maintain > connection between the ED and BS during the communication between them, is handled by RRM ‘ough the control channels. RRM also provides a downlink-only control message stream sent by the N, in order to maintain the link between the ED and BS. A Weightless protocol stack drawing can be nin Figure 14.
Figure 14. Weightless protocol stack. Radio Resource Manager (RRM) is present to control the traffic between an ED and its BS through ntrol Channels, using appropriate security provided by LL. The messages that control and maintain > connection between the ED and BS during the communication between them, is handled by RRM ‘ough the control channels. RRM also provides a downlink-only control message stream sent by the N, in order to maintain the link between the ED and BS. A Weightless protocol stack drawing can be nin Figure 14.
Figure 15. IEEE 802.11 standards. Reduction of processing, reduction of overhead in addition to reduction and optimization of access to the medium also drives the evolution of IEEE 802.11 PHY and MAC layers. In the PHY layer, the transmission recognition system that uses the acknowledgment (ACK) package has been optimized by reducing the ACK packet itself to the minimum necessary and also by creating the null data packet (NDP) carrying MAC. To keep the QoS parameters, the use of a new frame format dedicated to QoS called the Short QoS Data Frame. Its header was reduced to 12 bytes compared to the 30 bytes of the QoS data frame of IEEE 802.11n. In order to increase the number of stations up to a maximum of 8191, four encoding modes were defined in IEEE 802.11ah. They allow IEEE 802.11ah to compress the traffic indication virtual bitmap, used to signaling the association identifier of a station. A comparison of the TEFE 802.11 standards described is present in Figure 15.
Figure 15. IEEE 802.11 standards. Reduction of processing, reduction of overhead in addition to reduction and optimization of access to the medium also drives the evolution of IEEE 802.11 PHY and MAC layers. In the PHY layer, the transmission recognition system that uses the acknowledgment (ACK) package has been optimized by reducing the ACK packet itself to the minimum necessary and also by creating the null data packet (NDP) carrying MAC. To keep the QoS parameters, the use of a new frame format dedicated to QoS called the Short QoS Data Frame. Its header was reduced to 12 bytes compared to the 30 bytes of the QoS data frame of IEEE 802.11n. In order to increase the number of stations up to a maximum of 8191, four encoding modes were defined in IEEE 802.11ah. They allow IEEE 802.11ah to compress the traffic indication virtual bitmap, used to signaling the association identifier of a station. A comparison of the TEFE 802.11 standards described is present in Figure 15.
Figure 17. NB-IoT operation bands.
Figure 17. NB-IoT operation bands.
These channels and physical layer control signals in the NB-IoT are time multiplexed. Sub frames of the frame structure presented for the NB-IoT, are provided for different channels and physical signals. Each NB-IoT sub frame comprises a resource block in the frequency domain and 1ms in the time domain. The NPSS and NSSS signals are used to perform time and frequency synchronization as well as cell detection. An NRS signal is used to provide phase reference in the demodulation of downlink channels. The NB-IoT supports up to two NRS ports [92]. The NPBCH channel, transmitted in each sub frame 0 of the frame, loads the main information block, called the Master Information Block (MIB). The NPDCCH carries scheduling information for downlink and uplink data channels,
These channels and physical layer control signals in the NB-IoT are time multiplexed. Sub frames of the frame structure presented for the NB-IoT, are provided for different channels and physical signals. Each NB-IoT sub frame comprises a resource block in the frequency domain and 1ms in the time domain. The NPSS and NSSS signals are used to perform time and frequency synchronization as well as cell detection. An NRS signal is used to provide phase reference in the demodulation of downlink channels. The NB-IoT supports up to two NRS ports [92]. The NPBCH channel, transmitted in each sub frame 0 of the frame, loads the main information block, called the Master Information Block (MIB). The NPDCCH carries scheduling information for downlink and uplink data channels,
Figure 19. NB-IoT key parameters. CO NB-IoT reduces extreme simplicity for delay-tolerant applications such as meters, devices and sensors, providing wider coverage [95]. Common IoT solutions require low cost, high network device density and low data transfer. The NB-IoT technology aims, through LTE optimization, to meet this demand (more than 50 thousand devices) with low data rates in delay-tolerant applications. Figure 19 consolidate key parameters of NB-IoT.
Figure 19. NB-IoT key parameters. CO NB-IoT reduces extreme simplicity for delay-tolerant applications such as meters, devices and sensors, providing wider coverage [95]. Common IoT solutions require low cost, high network device density and low data transfer. The NB-IoT technology aims, through LTE optimization, to meet this demand (more than 50 thousand devices) with low data rates in delay-tolerant applications. Figure 19 consolidate key parameters of NB-IoT.
Figure 20. LTE-eMTC downlink layers. The LTE eMTC devices depend on the NPSS and NSSS of the LTE standard for the acquisition of the carrier frequency of a cell and frame time usage. LTE signals can be used unchanged by LTE eMTC devices even under challenging coverage conditions. To improve reception performance, LTE eMTC devices can accumulate data received in buffer. This happens because the NPSS and NSSS signals are transmitted periodically. In order to discover the communication channel characteristics, the NRS signal is used to give estimates of channel behavior. This signal, which has a known pattern, is transmitted by the base station and performs downlink quality measurements [92,108]. ey ees ee Cy a : i: | i es ie ne Ce Cy an ens oy an) ne i 2) ane any aed oe Ow
Figure 20. LTE-eMTC downlink layers. The LTE eMTC devices depend on the NPSS and NSSS of the LTE standard for the acquisition of the carrier frequency of a cell and frame time usage. LTE signals can be used unchanged by LTE eMTC devices even under challenging coverage conditions. To improve reception performance, LTE eMTC devices can accumulate data received in buffer. This happens because the NPSS and NSSS signals are transmitted periodically. In order to discover the communication channel characteristics, the NRS signal is used to give estimates of channel behavior. This signal, which has a known pattern, is transmitted by the base station and performs downlink quality measurements [92,108]. ey ees ee Cy a : i: | i es ie ne Ce Cy an ens oy an) ne i 2) ane any aed oe Ow
Figure 21. LTE eMTC uplink channels.
Figure 21. LTE eMTC uplink channels.
Figure 22. LoRa and LoRaWAN protocol stack. external interference mitigation [68]. Figure 22 presents a representation of LoRa and LoRaWAN protocol stacks.
Figure 22. LoRa and LoRaWAN protocol stack. external interference mitigation [68]. Figure 22 presents a representation of LoRa and LoRaWAN protocol stacks.
SigFox systems use D-BPSK (Differential Binary Phase Shift Keying) modulation to uplink and GFSK (Gaussian frequency shift keying) modulation to downlink. D-BPSK transmits at 1 bps using only 1 Hz of the operational band, which means that one single signal uses only a small part of the operational band, and therefoe brings higher efficiency in the spectrum medium access Applications that demand low transmission data rates, with lower cost devices, high availability and easy implementation coupled with the advantages of high link-budget, drive the use of D-BPSK modulation. Its physical layer employs a proprietary frequency hopping and frame repetition pattern to avoid interference of signals and it is responsible to determine how SigFox signals will be transmitted The physical layer handles the modulation used, the bit rate and transmission power control, as well as the radio resource occupation.
SigFox systems use D-BPSK (Differential Binary Phase Shift Keying) modulation to uplink and GFSK (Gaussian frequency shift keying) modulation to downlink. D-BPSK transmits at 1 bps using only 1 Hz of the operational band, which means that one single signal uses only a small part of the operational band, and therefoe brings higher efficiency in the spectrum medium access Applications that demand low transmission data rates, with lower cost devices, high availability and easy implementation coupled with the advantages of high link-budget, drive the use of D-BPSK modulation. Its physical layer employs a proprietary frequency hopping and frame repetition pattern to avoid interference of signals and it is responsible to determine how SigFox signals will be transmitted The physical layer handles the modulation used, the bit rate and transmission power control, as well as the radio resource occupation.
Figure 24. Comparison of the short range protocols.
Figure 24. Comparison of the short range protocols.

Related papers

A Survey of MAC Layer Issues and Application layer Protocols for Machine-to-Machine Communications
Kiran Patil

With the developing enthusiasm for the utilization of independent processing, detecting and activating gadgets for different applications such as smart grids, home networking, smart environments and cities, health care, and machine-to-machine (M2M) communication have become an important networking paradigm. However, in order to fully exploit the applications facilitated by M2M communications adequate support from all layers in the network stack must first be provided in order to meet their service requirements. This paper exhibits a study of the prerequisites, specialized difficulties, and existing work on medium access control (MAC) layer conventions for supporting M2M communications. This paper first describes the issues related to efficient, scalable, and fair channel access for M2M communications. At that point, we present and think about existing application layer conventions and additionally conventions that are used to associate the things additionally end-client applications to the Internet. We highlight IETFs CoAP & HTTP, IBMs MQTT, HTML 5s Web socket among others, and we argue their suitability for the IoT by considering reliability, security, and energy consumption aspects.

View PDFchevron_right
A Survey on Application Layer Protocols for the Internet of Things
Jaser Abdelkader

It has been more than fifteen years since the term Internet of Things (IoT) was introduced to the public. However, despite the efforts of research groups and innovative corporations, still today it is not possible to say that IoT is upon us. This is mainly due to the fact that a unified IoT architecture has not been yet clearly defined and there is no common agreement in defining protocols and standards for all IoT parts. The framework that current IoT platforms use consists mostly in technologies that partially fulfill some of the IoT requirements. While developers employ existing technologies to build the IoT, research groups are working on adapting protocols to the IoT in order to optimize communications. In this paper, we present and compare existing IoT application layer protocols as well as protocols that are utilized to connect the things but also end-user applications to the Internet. We highlight IETFs CoAP, IBMs MQTT, HTML 5s Web socket among others, and we argue their suitability for the IoT by considering reliability, security, and energy consumption aspects. Finally, we provide our conclusions for the IoT application layer communications based on the study that we have conducted.

View PDFchevron_right
A Survey of Application Layer Protocols of Internet of Things
Salwa Muhammad Akhtar

2021

The technological advancements of the last two decades directed the era of the Internet of Things (IoT). IoT enables billions of devices to connect through the internet and share their information and resources on a global level. These devices can be anything, from smartphones to embedded sensors. The main purpose of IoT is to make devices capable of achieving the desired goal with minimal to no human intervention. Although it hascome as a social and economic blessing, it still brought forward many security risks. This paper focuses on providing a survey of the most commonly used application layer protocols in the IoT domain, namely, Constrained Application Protocol (CoAP), Message Queuing Telemetry Transport (MQTT), Advanced Message Queuing Protocol (AMQP), and Extensible Messaging and Presence Protocol (XMPP). MQTT, AMQP, and XMPP use TCP for device-to-device communication, while CoAP utilizes UDP to achieve this purpose. MQTT and AMQP are based on a publish/subscribe model, CoAP ...

View PDFchevron_right
0 Study of Various MAC Protocols for WSNs 2014
Sneha Sharma

During the last decade, Wireless Sensor Networks (WSNs) have evolved as an incredibly useful technology in the area of signal processing and data communication. They have found prolific applications in a wide range of domains which include cell phone monitoring, robotic exploration, disaster management, intrusion detection and medical systems. Medium Access Control (MAC) protocols constitute an important set of regulations which enables the successful and smooth operation of the WSN. A fundamental design goal of all MAC protocols is to prevent energy wastes from various possible sources during data communications. Till now, a wide variety of MAC protocols with different objectives have been accumulated in sensor network literature. A thorough study of these protocols is very important both from the perspectives of understanding the current research trends and determining scopes for further innovative works in this domain. This paper meticulously discusses about the associated issues and difficulties which are faced in designing efficient MAC protocols for WSNs. Several popular MAC protocols are described here with their inherent merits and demerits. In order to provide an up-to-date survey, various MAC protocols which have been developed relatively recently are discussed, together with the traditional benchmark ones. Finally, this paper concludes with outlining a number of innovative ideas and future research directions in this domain.

View PDFchevron_right
A comparison of 802.11ah and 802.15.4 for IoT
Nurzaman Ahmed

ICT Express, 2016

The emerging IEEE 802.11ah is a promising communication standard that supports a massive number of heterogeneous devices in the Internet of Things (IoT). It provides attractive features like improved scalability, low energy consumption, and coverage of large area. In this paper, we analyze the performance of IEEE 802.11ah, and compare it with a prominent alternative, the IEEE 802.15.4. The simulation results show that the new 802.11ah standard performs better than the 802.15.4 in terms of association time, throughput, delay, and coverage range. c

View PDFchevron_right
A Study of Link Layer Protocols in IOT
IJFRCSCE Journal

— Internet of Thing is a new paradigm of current world. The Internet of Things is represent as a model in which physical objects (things) fitted with sensors, actuators and network connectivity which enable these objects to communicate each other. Communication plays central role to the Internet of things. Networking technologies used in communication between IoT devices and other devices as well as with applications and services that are running in the cloud. To ensure the security and reliability of communication between heterogeneous devices Internet based on standardized protocols. These standard protocols gives the rules and formats that devices use for establishment and management of networks as well as for transmission of data across those networks This paper presents an overview of IoT connectivity. This paper surveys protocol stack architecture for Internet of Things and focus on link layer technologies used in communication of smart objects.

View PDFchevron_right
CU-MAC: A Duty-Cycle MAC Protocol for Internet of Things in Wireless Sensor Networks
Kulit Na Nakorn

ECTI Transactions on Electrical Engineering, Electronics, and Communications, 2018

Nowadays “Internet of Things” or IoT becomes the most popular technology in the Internet system. Types of devices and sensors have been connected as a network of devices and sensors. While a wireless sensor network is a traditional network of sensors that can be considered as a beginning point of IoT systems. Currently, these sensor data are not only exchanged within a local network but also are delivered to other devices in the Internet. Consequently, well-known organizations such as IEEE, IETF, ITU-T and ISO/IET are trying to set standards for wireless sensor devices in IoT systems. The recommended standard utilizes many of internet stack standards such as CoAP, UDP and IP. However, the traditional design of WSNs is to avoid using internet protocol in the system to reduce transmission overhead and power consumption due to resource limitation. Fortunately, the current technology in both hardware and software allow the internet standard to sufficiently operate in a small sensor. In...

View PDFchevron_right
An efficient medium access control protocol for RF energy harvesting based IoT devices
ahmad alvi

Computer Communications, 2021

Energy efficiency is one of the major challenges in IEEE 802.15.4 based Internet of Things (IoT). In the Medium Access Control (MAC) layer of the IEEE 802.15.4 standard, Guaranteed Time Slot (GTS) are allocated to the IoT devices for data transmission. However, GTS allocation does not consider residual energy of IoT devices resulting in reduced life cycle of these devices. In this paper, we propose an efficient MAC protocol for RF harvesting based IoT devices. The proposed protocol uses residual energy based duty cycle adaptation to prioritize transmission of high energy devices, allowing low energy devices to harvest energy in the mean time. Simulation results show that the life cycle and transmitted data of IoT devices is improved up to 94% and 79% respectively by using the proposed protocol, as compared to the IEEE 802.15.4 standard.

View PDFchevron_right
Internet of Things- Ecosystem, Architecture, Protocols: A Survey
Upadhyay Pranjal

2020

In this paper, we survey state-of-the-art methods, protocols, and applications in this new emerging area. This survey paper proposes some applications that have the potential to make a striking difference in human life, especially for the differently abled and the elderly. As compared to similar survey papers in the area, this paper is far more comprehensive in its coverage and exhaustively covers most major technologies spanning to applications. This paper discusses different standards offered by IEEE, IETF and ITU to enable technologies matching the rapid growth in IoT. These standards include communication, routing, network and session layers of the networking stack that are being developed just to meet requirements of IoT. As well as in this paper we discuss different architecture of Internet of Things.

View PDFchevron_right
Resource Management for Massive Internet of Things in IEEE 802.11ah WLAN: Potentials, Current Solutions, and Open Challenges
Jae-Young Pyun

Sensors

IEEE 802.11ah, known as Wi-Fi HaLow, is envisioned for long-range and low-power communication. It is sub-1 GHz technology designed for massive Internet of Things (IoT) and machine-to-machine devices. It aims to overcome the IoT challenges, such as providing connectivity to massive power-constrained devices distributed over a large geographical area. To accomplish this objective, IEEE 802.11ah introduces several unique physical and medium access control layer (MAC) features. In recent years, the MAC features of IEEE 802.11ah, including restricted access window, authentication (e.g., centralized and distributed) and association, relay and sectorization, target wake-up time, and traffic indication map, have been intensively investigated from various aspects to improve resource allocation and enhance the network performance in terms of device association time, throughput, delay, and energy consumption. This survey paper presents an in-depth assessment and analysis of these MAC features ...

View PDFchevron_right

References (130)

  1. IEEE GET Program. IEEE 802 GET 802(R) Standards. Available online: https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/browse/ standards/get-program/page/series?id=68 (accessed on 10 December 2018).
  2. Buratti, C.; Conti, A.; Dardari, D.; Verdone, R. An overview on wireless sensor networks technology and evolution. Sensors 2009, 9, 6869-6896. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. IEEE Computer Society. IEEE Standards IEEE 802.15.4-Part 15.4-Wireless MAC and PHY Specifications for Low-Rate Wireless Personal Area Networks-LR-WPANs, 2003th ed.; The Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, Inc.: Piscataway, NJ, USA, 2003.
  4. IEEE 802.15.6-2012. IEEE Standard for Local and Metropolitan Area Networks-Part 15.6: Wireless Body Area Networks; IEEE Standard for Information Technology; IEEE: Piscataway, NJ, USA, 2012; Volume 802, pp. 1-271.
  5. Alam, M.M.; Hamida, E.B. Surveying wearable human assistive technology for life and safety critical applications: Standards, challenges and opportunities. Sensors 2014, 14, 9153-9209. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  6. Alam, M.M.; Hamida, E.B. Performance Evaluation of IEEE 802.15. 6 MAC for Wearable Body Sensor Networks Using a Space-Time Dependent Radio Link Model; IEEE: Piscataway, NJ, USA, 2014; pp. 441-448.
  7. Kwak, K.S.; Ullah, S.; Ullah, N. An overview of IEEE 802.15. 6 standard. In Proceedings of the 2010 3rd International Symposium on Applied Sciences in Biomedical and Communication Technologies (ISABEL), Roma, Italy, 7-10 November 2010; pp. 1-6.
  8. Flore, D.; 3GPP. Evolution of LTE in Release 13; 3GPP: Sophia Antipolis, France, 2015.
  9. Roy, S.; Jandhyala, V.; Smith, J.R.; Wetherall, D.J.; Otis, B.P.; Chakraborty, R.; Buettner, M.; Yeager, D.J.; Ko, Y.C.; Sample, A.P. RFID: From supply chains to sensor nets. Proc. IEEE 2010, 98, 1583-1592. [CrossRef]
  10. Finkenzeller, K. RFID Handbook, 3rd ed.; Wiley: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2010.
  11. Atzori, L.; Iera, A.; Morabito, G. The internet of things: A survey. Comput. Netw. 2010, 54, 2787-2805. [CrossRef]
  12. International Organization for Standardization (ISO). ISO/IEC 14443-1:2016 Standard, Identification Cards-Contactless Integrated Circuit Cards-Proximity Cards-Part 1: Physical Characteristics. Available online: https://www.iso.org/standard/70170.html (accessed on 11 May 2018).
  13. Issovits, W.; Hutter, M. Weaknesses of the ISO/IEC 14443 protocol regarding relay attacks. In Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on RFID-Technologies and Applications (RFID-TA), Sitges, Spain, 15-16 September 2011; pp. 335-342.
  14. International Organization for Standardization (ISO). ISO/IEC 14443-2:2016-Identification Cards-Contactless Integrated Circuit Cards-Proximity Cards-Part 2: Radio Frequency Power and Signal Interface. Available online: https://www.iso.org/standard/66288.html (accessed on 14 May 2018).
  15. Bhuptani, M.; Moradpour, S. RFID Field Guide: Deploying Radio Frequency Identification Systems; Prentice Hall PTR: Upper Saddle River, NJ, USA, 2005.
  16. GS1 Standards. EPC/RFID-Standards. Available online: https://www.gs1.org/standards/epc-rfid (accessed on 14 May 2018).
  17. GS1 Standards. EPCIS and Core Business Vocabulary (CBV)-Standards. Available online: https://www. gs1.org/standards/epcis (accessed on 14 May 2018).
  18. Coskun, V.; Ozdenizci, B.; Ok, K. A survey on near field communication (NFC) technology.
  19. Wirel. Pers. Commun. 2013, 71, 2259-2294. [CrossRef]
  20. International Organization for Standardization and International Electrotechnical Commission. ISO/IEC 18092:2013/Cor 1:2015. Available online: https://standards.iso.org/ittf/PubliclyAvailableStandards/index. html (accessed on 10 December 2018).
  21. Want, R. Near field communication. IEEE Pervasive Comput. 2011, 10, 4-7. [CrossRef]
  22. Kurzweil, R. The singularity is near. In Ethics and Emerging Technologies; Springer: Berlin, Germany, 2014; pp. 393-406.
  23. Atzori, L.; Iera, A.; Morabito, G. From "Smart Objects" to "Social Oobjects": The Next Evolutionary Step of the Internet of Things. IEEE Commun. Mag. 2014, 52, 97-105. [CrossRef]
  24. Zhao, Y.; Mahoney, B.; Smith, J.R. Analysis of a Near Field Communication wireless power system. In Proceedings of the IEEE Wireless Power Transfer Conference (WPTC), Aveiro, Portugal, 5-6 May 2016; pp. 1-4.
  25. Coskun, V.; Ok, K.; Ozdenizci, B. Near Field Communication (NFC): From Theory to Practice; John Wiley & Sons: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2011.
  26. NFC-Forum. The Near Field Communication-Specification Releases. Available online: https://nfc-forum. org/ (accessed on 24 July 2018).
  27. Madlmayr, G.; Langer, J.; Scharinger, J. Managing an NFC ecosystem. In Proceedings of the IEEE 7th International Conference on Mobile Business (ICMB'08), Barcelona, Spain, 7-8 July 2008; pp. 95-101.
  28. Bruno, R.; Conti, M.; Gregori, E. Bluetooth: Architecture, protocols and scheduling algorithms. Clust. Comput. 2002, 5, 117-131. [CrossRef]
  29. Bluetooth SIG. Bluetooth Specification Version 5.0 Vol 0: Master Table of Contents & Compliance Requirements; Bluetooth Special Interest Group (SIG) Specifications: Kirkland, WA, USA, 2016. Available online: https://www.bluetooth.com/specifications/adopted-specifications (accessed on 24 July 2018).
  30. Xiao, Y.; Pan, Y. Emerging Wireless LANs, Wireless PANs, and Wireless MANs: IEEE 802.11, IEEE 802.15, 802.16 Wireless Standard Family; John Wiley & Sons: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2009; Volume 57.
  31. Website, B.T. Bluetooth Protocol Specifications. Available online: https://www.bluetooth.org/Technical/ Specifications/adopted.htm (accessed on 31 May 2017).
  32. Afonso, J.A.; Maio, A.J.F.; Simoes, R. Performance Evaluation of Bluetooth Low Energy for High Data Rate Body Area Networks. Wirel. Pers. Commun. 2016, 90, 121-141. [CrossRef]
  33. Instruments, T. Application Note AN092-Measuring Bluetooth R Low Energy Power Consumption; Technical Report; Texas Instruments: Dallas, TX, USA, 2012.
  34. Ergen, S.C. ZigBee/IEEE 802.15.4 Summary; University of California: Berkeley, CA, USA, 2004; Volume 10; p. 17. Available online: http://users.eecs.northwestern.edu/~peters/references/ZigtbeeIEEE802.pdf (accessed on 31 May 2017).
  35. Baronti, P.; Pillai, P.; Chook, V.W.; Chessa, S.; Gotta, A.; Hu, Y.F. Wireless sensor networks: A survey on the state of the art and the 802.15. 4 and ZigBee standards. Comput. Commun. 2007, 30, 1655-1695. [CrossRef]
  36. Zheng, J.; Lee, M.J. A comprehensive performance study of IEEE 802.15.
  37. Sens. Netw. Oper. 2006, 4, 218-237.
  38. Sheng, Z.; Yang, S.; Yu, Y.; Vasilakos, A.; Mccann, J.; Leung, K. A survey on the ietf protocol suite for the internet of things: Standards, challenges, and opportunities. IEEE Wirel. Commun. 2013, 20, 91-98. [CrossRef]
  39. Shelby, Z.; Bormann, C. 6LoWPAN: The Wireless Embedded Internet; John Wiley & Sons: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2011; Volume 43.
  40. Centenaro, M.; Vangelista, L.; Zanella, A.; Zorzi, M. Long-range communications in unlicensed bands: The rising stars in the IoT and smart city scenarios. IEEE Wirel. Commun. 2016, 23, 60-67. [CrossRef]
  41. Rao, S.M.; Krishna, M.V.; Reddy, V.M. Performance analysis of hybrid protocol for IEEE802.15.4 based wireless sensor network. Int. J. VLSI Embed. Syst. Signal Process. 2015, 2, 3-7.
  42. Fareeha Zafar, M. Performance Analysis of IEEE 802.15.4 in Terms of Energy Efficient Parameters within WSN. J. Appl. Environ. Biol. Sci. 2014, 4, 548-557.
  43. Mikhaylov, K.; Plevritakis, N.; Tervonen, J. Performance analysis and comparison of Bluetooth Low Energy with IEEE 802.15. 4 and SimpliciTI. J. Sens. Actuator Netw. 2013, 2, 589-613. [CrossRef]
  44. Yuan, W.; Wang, X.; Linnartz, J.P.M.G.; Niemegeers, I.G.M.M. Coexistence performance of IEEE 802.15. 4 wireless sensor networks under IEEE 802.11 b/g interference. Wirel. Pers. Commun. 2013, 68, 281-302. [CrossRef]
  45. Srivastava, R.; Kumar, A. Performance analysis of beacon-less IEEE 802.15. 4 multi-hop networks. In Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Communication Systems and Networks (COMSNETS), Bangalore, India, 3-7 January 2012; pp. 1-10.
  46. IEEE 802.15 WPAN TM Task Group-4e (TG4e). IEEE 802.15 WPAN Document Archive. Available online: http://grouper.ieee.org/groups/802/15/pub/Download.html (accessed on 12 June 2018).
  47. Guglielmo, D.D.; Brienza, S.; Anastasi, G. IEEE 802.15.4e: A survey. Comput. Commun. 2016, 88, 1-24. [CrossRef]
  48. De Guglielmo, D.; Anastasi, G.; Seghetti, A. From IEEE 802.15.4 to IEEE 802.15.4e: A step towards the internet of things. In Advances onto the Internet of Things; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2014; Volume 10; pp. 135-152.
  49. Oliveira, L.M.; Rodrigues, J.J. Wireless Sensor Networks: A Survey on Environmental Monitoring. JCM 2011, 6, 143-151. [CrossRef]
  50. Shin, Y.S.; Lee, K.W.; Ahn, J.S. Analytical performance evaluation of IEEE 802.15.4 with multiple transmission queues for providing QoS under non-saturated conditions. In Proceedings of the 16th
  51. Asia-Pacific Conference on Communications (APCC), Auckland, New Zealand, 31 October-3 November 2010; pp. 334-339.
  52. Al-Nidawi, Y.; Yahya, H.; Kemp, A.H. Impact of mobility on the IoT MAC infrastructure: IEEE 802.15.4e TSCH and LLDN platform. In Proceedings of the IEEE 2nd World Forum on Internet of Things (WF-IoT), Milan, Italy, 14-16 December 2015; pp. 478-483.
  53. Santhi, S.; Divya, B. Energy Consumption using IEEE802.15.4 Sensor Networks. Int. J. Comput. Appl. 2015, 116, 30-33.
  54. Petersen, S.; Carlsen, S. WirelessHART Versus ISA100.11a: The Format War Hits the Factory Floor. IEEE Ind. Electron. Mag. 2011, 5, 23-34. [CrossRef]
  55. International Society of Automation (ISA). ISA100, Wireless Systems for Automation-ISA. Available online: https://www.isa.org/isa100/ (accessed on 15 May 2017).
  56. FieldComm-Group. HART Communication Protocol. Available online: https://fieldcommgroup.org/ (accessed on 15 May 2017).
  57. WINA. Wireless Industrial Networking Alliance (WINA). Available online: http://www.wina.org/ (accessed on 15 May 2017).
  58. Zigbee-Alliance. Zigbee Specifications. Available online: http://www.zigbee.org/ (accessed on 15 May 2017).
  59. Nobre, M.; Silva, I.; Guedes, L.A. Routing and scheduling algorithms for WirelessHARTNetworks: A survey. Sensors 2015, 15, 9703-9740. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  60. Iordache, V.; Gheorghiu, R.A.; Minea, M. Analysis of interferences in data transmission for wireless communications implemented in vehicular environments. In Proceedings of the Federated Conference on Computer Science and Information Systems (FedCSIS), Prague, Czech Republic, 3-6 September 2017; pp. 849-852.
  61. Song, J.; Chen, D.; Nixon, M.; Lucas, M.; Pratt, W.; Han, S.; Mok, A. WirelessHART: Applying Wireless Technology in Real-Time Industrial Process Control. In Proceedings of the IEEE Real-Time and Embedded Technology and Applications Symposium(RTAS), St. Louis, MO, USA, 22-24 April 2008; pp. 377-386.
  62. Yassein, M.B.; Mardini, W.; Khalil, A. Smart homes automation using Z-wave protocol. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Engineering MIS (ICEMIS), Agadir, Morocco, 22-24 September 2016; pp. 1-6.
  63. Z-Wave Alliance-Home Management. Available online: https://z-wavealliance.org/home-management/ (accessed on 9 May 2018).
  64. ITU T-REC-G.9959: Short Range Narrow-Band Digital Radiocommunication Transceivers-PHY, MAC, SAR and LLC Layer Specifications. Available online: http://www.itu.int/rec/T-REC-G.9959-201501-I (accessed on 9 May 2018).
  65. Rathnayaka, A.J.D.; Potdar, V.M.; Kuruppu, S.J. Evaluation of wireless home automation technologies. In Proceedings of the 5th IEEE International Conference on Digital Ecosystems and Technologies (IEEE DEST 2011), Daejeon, Korea, 31 May-3 June 2011; pp. 76-81.
  66. Fouladi, B.; Ghanoun, S. Security evaluation of the Z-Wave wireless protocol. Black Hat USA 2013, 24, 1-2.
  67. Morais, A.; Cavalli, A. Route manipulation attack in wireless mesh networks. In Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Advanced Information Networking and Applications (AINA), Singapore, 22-25 March 2011; pp. 501-508.
  68. Gomez, C.; Oller, J.; Paradells, J. Overview and Evaluation of Bluetooth Low Energy: An Emerging Low-Power Wireless Technology. Sensors 2012, 12, 11734-11753. [CrossRef]
  69. Boujelben, M.; Youssef, H.; Mzid, R.; Abid, M. IKM-An Identity based Key Management Scheme for Heterogeneous Sensor Networks. JCM 2011, 6, 185-197. [CrossRef]
  70. Weightless Special Interest Group (SIG). Weightless-Setting the Standard for IoT. Available online: http: //www.weightless.org/ (accessed on 9 May 2018).
  71. Adelantado, F.; Vilajosana, X.; Tuset-Peiro, P.; Martinez, B.; Melia-Segui, J.; Watteyne, T. Understanding the Limits of LoRaWAN. IEEE Commun. Mag. 2017, 55, 34-40. [CrossRef]
  72. Weightless-SIG. Weightless Specification. Available online: http://www.weightless.org/about/weightless- specification (accessed on 9 May 2018).
  73. Webb, W. Understanding Weightless: Technology, Equipment, and Network Deployment for M2M Communications in White Space; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2012.
  74. Weightless Special Interest Group (SIG) Weightless-P System Specification. Available online: http://www. weightless.org (accessed on 8 April 2017).
  75. IEEE-Standard Association, IEEE802 Program-IEEE802.11: Wireless LANs. Available online: http://standards.ieee.org/about/get/802/802.11.html (accessed on 17 June 2017).
  76. IEEE-IEEE P802.11-Task Group AH-Meeting Update. Available online: http://www.ieee802.org/11/ Reports/tgah_update.htm (accessed on 5 May 2017).
  77. Adame, T.; Bel, A.; Bellalta, B.; Barcelo, J.; Oliver, M. IEEE 802.11AH: The WiFi approach for M2M communications. IEEE Wirel. Commun. 2014, 21, 144-152. [CrossRef]
  78. Ian, P. IEEE 802.11ah-Sub GHz Wi-Fi-Radio-Electronics.com. Available online: http://www.radio- electronics.com/info/wireless/wi-fi/ieee-802-11ah-sub-ghz-wifi.php (accessed on 30 May 2017).
  79. Fischer, M. IEEE 11-12/1338r0-Frequency Selective Transmission, November 2012. Available online: https://mentor.ieee.org/802.11/documents?is_dcn=FrequencySelectiveTransmission&is_group=00ah (accessed on 18 May 2018).
  80. Porat, R. IEEE 802.11-12/1322r0-Traveling Pilots-November 2012. Available online: https://mentor.ieee. org/802.11/documents?is_dcn=traveling%20pilots (accessed on 18 May 2018).
  81. Aust, S.; Prasad, R.V.; Niemegeers, I.G.M.M. IEEE 802.11ah: Advantages in Standards and Further Challenges for sub 1 GHz Wi-Fi; IEEE: Piscataway, NJ, USA, 2012; pp. 6885-6889.
  82. IEEE 802.11 Working Group. IEEE Standard for Information technology-Telecommunications and information exchange between systems Local and metropolitan area networks-Specific requirements-Part 11: Wireless LAN Medium Access Control (MAC) and Physical Layer (PHY) Specifications. In IEEE Std 802.11-2016 (Revision of IEEE Std 802.11-2012); IEEE: Piscataway, NJ, USA, 2016; pp. 1-3534.
  83. Park, M. IEEE 802.11ah: Energy efficient MAC protocols for long range wireless LAN. In Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Communications (ICC), Sydney, Australia, 10-14 June 2014; pp. 2388-2393.
  84. Sun, W.; Choi, M.; Choi, S. IEEE 802.11 ah: A long range 802.11 WLAN at sub 1 GHz. J. ICT Stand. 2013, 1, 83-108. [CrossRef]
  85. SigFox. Sigfox Technology Overview. Available online: http://www.sigfox.com/en/sigfox-iot-radio- technology (accessed on 6 June 2016).
  86. LoRaWAN TM 101-A Technical Introduction-LoRa Alliance TM . Available online: https://lora-alliance.org/ resource-hub/what-lorawantm (accessed on 5 June 2018).
  87. INGENU-RPMA Technology. Available online: https://www.ingenu.com/technology/rpma/ (accessed on 5 June 2018).
  88. Soltanmohammadi, E.; Ghavami, K.; Naraghi-Pour, M. A Survey of Traffic Issues in Machine-to-Machine Communications Over LTE. IEEE Internet Things J. 2016, 3, 865-884. [CrossRef]
  89. Rico-Alvarino, A.; Vajapeyam, M.; Xu, H.; Wang, X.; Blankenship, Y.; Bergman, J.; Tirronen, T.; Yavuz, E. An overview of 3GPP enhancements on machine to machine communications. IEEE Commun. Mag. 2016, 54, 14-21. [CrossRef]
  90. Ratasuk, R.; Vejlgaard, B.; Mangalvedhe, N.; Ghosh, A. NB-IoT system for M2M communication. In Proceedings of the IEEE Wireless Communications and Networking Conference, Doha, Qatar, 3-6 April 2016.
  91. Gozalvez, J. New 3GPP Standard for IoT [Mobile Radio].
  92. IEEE Veh. Technol. Mag. 2016, 11, 14-20. [CrossRef]
  93. Ratasuk, R.; Mangalvedhe, N.; Zhang, Y.; Robert, M.; Koskinen, J.P. Overview of narrowband IoT in LTE Rel-13. In Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Standards for Communications and Networking (CSCN), Berlin, Germany, 31 October-2 November 2016; pp. 1-7.
  94. Zayas, A.D.; Merino, P. The 3GPP NB-IoT system architecture for the Internet of Things. In Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Communications Workshops (ICC Workshops), Paris, France, 21-25 May 2017; pp. 277-282.
  95. The 3rd Generation Partnership Project-3GPP TS36-211. Evolved Universal Terrestrial Radio Access (EUTRA) and Evolved Universal Terrestrial Radio Access Network (EUTRAN) Physical Channels and Modulation. Available online: https://www.arib.or.jp/english/html/overview/doc/STD-T104v4_10/5_ Appendix/Rel13/36/36211-d20.pdf (accessed on 6 June 2018).
  96. The 3rd Generation Partnership Project-3GPP TS36-212. Evolved Universal Terrestrial Radio Access (EUTRA) and Evolved Universal Terrestrial Radio Access Network (EUTRAN); Multiplexing and Channel Coding. Available online: https://www.etsi.org/deliver/etsi_ts/136200_136299/136212/14.02.00_60/ts_ 136212v140200p.pdf (accessed on 7 June 2018).
  97. The 3rd Generation Partnership Project-3GPP TS36-213. Evolved Universal Terrestrial Radio Access (EUTRA) and Evolved Universal Terrestrial Radio Access Network (EUTRAN); Physical Layer Procedures. Available online: https://www.etsi.org/deliver/etsi_ts/136200_136299/136213/14.02.00_60/ ts_136213v140200p.pdf (accessed on 13 June 2018).
  98. Dhafer, B.A.; Alam, M.M.; Le Moullec, Y.; Ben Hamida, E. Communication Challenges in on-Body and Body-to-Body Wearable Wireless Networks-A Connectivity Perspective. Technologies 2017, 5, 43.
  99. Panigrahi, B.; Rath, H.K.; Ramamohan, R.; Simha, A. Energy and spectral efficient direct Machine-to-Machine (M2M) communication for cellular Internet of Things (IoT) networks. In Proceedings of the 2016 International Conference on Internet of Things and Applications (IOTA), Pune, India, 22-24 January 2016; pp. 337-342.
  100. Wang, M.; Zhang, J.; Ren, B.; Yang, W.; Zou, J.; Hua, M.; You, X. The Evolution of LTE Physical Layer Control Channels. IEEE Commun. Surv. Tutor. 2016, 18, 1336-1354. [CrossRef]
  101. Ali, A.; Hamouda, W.; Uysal, M. Next generation M2M cellular networks: challenges and practical considerations. IEEE Commun. Mag. 2015, 53, 18-24. [CrossRef]
  102. Shafiq, M.Z.; Ji, L.; Liu, A.X.; Pang, J.; Wang, J. Large-Scale Measurement and Characterization of Cellular Machine-to-Machine Traffic. IEEE/ACM Transa. Netw. 2013, 21, 1960-1973. [CrossRef]
  103. Jian, X.; Zeng, X.; Jia, Y.; Zhang, L.; He, Y. Beta/M/1 Model for Machine Type Communication. IEEE Commun. Lett. 2013, 17, 584-587. [CrossRef]
  104. 37.868, G.T. 3rd Generation Partnership Project; Technical Specification Group Radio Access Network; Study on RAN Improvements for Machine-type Communications; (Release 11). Available online: http: //www.3gpp.org/ftp//Specs/archive/37_series/37.868/ (accessed on 21 June 2018).
  105. 23.888, G.T. 3rd Generation Partnership Project; Technical Specification Group Services and System Aspects; System improvements for Machine-Type Communications (MTC) (Release 11). Available online: http: //www.3gpp.org/ftp//Specs/archive/37_series/37.868/ (accessed on 2 July 2018).
  106. 22.368, G.T. 3rd Generation Partnership Project; Technical Specification Group Services and System Aspects; Service requirements for Machine-Type Communications (MTC); Stage 1 (Release 14). Available online: http://www.3gpp.org/ftp//Specs/archive/23_series/23.888/ (accessed on 4 July 2018).
  107. 36.888, G.T. 3rd Generation Partnership Project; Technical Specification Group Radio Access Network; Study on provision of low-cost Machine-Type Communications (MTC) User Equipments (UEs) based on LTE (Release 12). Available online: http://www.3gpp.org/ftp//Specs/archive/36_series/36.868/ (accessed on 15 June 2018).
  108. Wang, Y.P.E.; Lin, X.; Adhikary, A.; Grovlen, A.; Sui, Y.; Blankenship, Y.; Bergman, J.; Razaghi, H.S. A Primer on 3GPP Narrowband Internet of Things. IEEE Commun. Mag. 2017, 55, 117-123. [CrossRef]
  109. Liberg, O.; Sundberg, M.; Wang, E.; Bergman, J.; Sachs, J. Cellular Internet of Things: Technologies, Standards, and Performance; Elsevier Academic Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2017.
  110. Wang, M.; Yang, W.; Zou, J.; Ren, B.; Hua, M.; Zhang, J.; You, X. Cellular machine-type communications: physical challenges and solutions. IEEE Wirel. Commun. 2016, 23, 126-135. [CrossRef]
  111. TS36-214, G. Third Generation Partnership Project. Technical Specification 36.214 v14.0.0, Evolved Universal Terrestrial Radio Access (E-UTRA); Physical Layer; Measurements. Available online: https://www.etsi.org/ deliver/etsi_ts/136200_136299/136214/10.01.00_60/ts_136214v100100p.pdf (accessed on 22 July 2018).
  112. Semtech Acquires Wireless Long Range IP Provider Cycleo. 7 March 2012. Available online: https://investors.semtech.com/news-releases/news-release-details/semtech-acquires-wireless-long- range-ip-provider-cycleo (accessed on 5 July 2018).
  113. Libelium. Libelium-Connecting Sensors to the Cloud. Available online: http://www.libelium.com/ (accessed on 5 June 2017).
  114. Diario Oficial Boletín Oficial del Estado Ministerio de la Presidencia, R.c.l.C.e.I.G.d.E. Orden IET/787/2013, de 25 de Abril, por la que se Aprueba el Cuadro Nacional de Atribución de Frecuencias. Available online: https://www.boe.es/buscar/doc.php?id=BOE-A-2013-4845 (accessed on 23 July 2017).
  115. Semtech-Corporation. AN1200.22 LoRa Modulation Basics; Semtech-Corporation: Camarillo, CA, USA, 2015.
  116. Goursaud, C.; Gorce, J.M. Dedicated networks for IoT: PHY/MAC state of the art and challenges. EAI Endorsed Trans. Internet Things 2015. [CrossRef]
  117. Mikhaylov, K.; Petäjäjärvi, J.; Hänninen, T. Analysis of Capacity and Scalability of the LoRa Low Power Wide Area Network Technology. In Proceedings of the 22th European Wireless Conference on European Wireless, Oulu, Finland, 18-20 May 2016; pp. 1-6.
  118. Krupka, L.; Vojtech, L.; Neruda, M. The issue of LPWAN technology coexistence in IoT environment. In Proceedings of the IEEE 17th International Conference on Mechatronics-Mechatronika (ME), Prague, Czech Republic, 7-9 December 2016; pp. 1-8.
  119. Raza, U.; Kulkarni, P.; Sooriyabandara, M. Low Power Wide Area Networks: An Overview. IEEE Commun. Surv. Tutor. 2017, 19, 855-873. [CrossRef]
  120. Bor, M.; Vidler, J.E.; Roedig, U. LoRa for the Internet of Things. In Proceedings of the 2016 International Conference on Embedded Wireless Systems and Networks (EWSN '16), Graz, Austria, 15-17 February 2016; pp. 361-366.
  121. ETSI. ETSI-ERM TG28 LTN -TR 103 249 V1.1.1 (2017-10)-Low Throughput Network (LTN) Use Cases and System Characteristics; ETSI: Sophia Antipolis, France, 2017.
  122. Margelis, G.; Piechocki, R.; Kaleshi, D.; Thomas, P. Low Throughput Networks for the IoT: Lessons learned from industrial implementations. In Proceedings of the WF-IoT 2015 IEEE World Forum on Internet of Things, Milan, Italy, 14-16 December 2015; pp. 181-186.
  123. SigFox. SigFox Radio Access Network Technology. Available online: http://www.sigfox.com/en/sigfox- iot-radio-technology (accessed on 3 May 2018).
  124. Olyaei, B.B.; Pirskanen, J.; Raeesi, O.; Hazmi, A.; Valkama, M. Performance comparison between slotted IEEE 802.15.4 and IEEE 802.1 lah in IoT based applications. In Proceedings of the 2013 IEEE 9th International Conference on Wireless and Mobile Computing, Networking and Communications (WiMob), Lyon, France, 7-9 October 2013; pp. 332-337.
  125. Siekkinen, M.; Hiienkari, M.; Nurminen, J.K.; Nieminen, J. How low energy is bluetooth low energy? Comparative measurements with ZigBee/802.15.4. In Proceedings of the 2012 IEEE Wireless Communications and Networking Conference Workshops (WCNCW), Paris, France, 1 April 2012; pp. 232-237.
  126. Ren, Y.; Oleshchuk, V.A.; Li, F.Y.; Ge, X. Security in mobile wireless sensor networks-A survey. J. Commun. 2011, 6, 128-142. [CrossRef]
  127. Al-Fuqaha, A.; Khreishah, A.; Guizani, M.; Rayes, A.; Mohammadi, M. Toward better horizontal integration among IoT services. IEEE Commun. Mag. 2015, 53, 72-79. [CrossRef]
  128. Oliveira, L.M.L.; Reis, J.; Rodrigues, J.J.P.C.; De Sousa, A.F. IOT based solution for home power energy monitoring and actuating. In Proceedings of the 2015 IEEE International Conference on Industrial Informatics (INDIN), Cambridge, UK, 22-24 July 2015; pp. 988-992.
  129. Bandyopadhyay, D.; Sen, J. Internet of things: Applications and challenges in technology and standardization. Wirel. Pers. Commun. 2011, 58, 49-69. [CrossRef]
  130. Paul, B.; Matin, M.A. A New Design Scheme for a Disperse Two Tiered Wireless Sensor Network. JCM 2011, 6, 198-203. [CrossRef]

Related papers

MAC Protocols for IEEE 802.11ah-Based Internet of Things: A Survey
Nurzaman Ahmed

IEEE Internet of Things Journal, 2022

The IEEE 802.11ah, also known as WiFi HaLow, is a scalable solution for medium-range communication in Internet of Things (IoT). While provisioning support for the IoT and machine-to-machine (M2M) communication, IEEE 802.11ah leverages various innovative medium access control (MAC) layer concepts, such as restricted access window (RAW), hierarchical association identification (AID), traffic indication map (TIM) segmentation, etc. This article presents a survey on various MAC protocols for IEEE 802.11ah. While discussing the essential features of IEEE 802.11ah, this survey points out various issues and limitations of such MAC protocols. Although there are some surveys available for MAC protocols of IEEE 802.11ah, they do not include a large number of schemes that have been recently proposed to solve different standardization and implementation-based issues. This article individually surveys issues and challenges in the different problem domains of the IEEE 802.11ah MAC protocol and analyzes the recently proposed solutions. Moreover, this article identifies various factors for further improvement of these protocols. Compared to other relevant surveys, this article emphasizes the issues and challenges to enable researchers to easily identify the problem domain.

View PDFchevron_right
A Review of Link Layer Protocols for Internet of Things
Raja Abdelmoumen

International Journal of Computer Applications

Internet of Things (IoT) consists of smart objects that communicate together, collect and exchange data. IoT has now a wide range of domain applications such as industry, logistics, healthcare, smart environment, as well as personal, social gaming robot, and smart city. The characteristics required by applications, such as coverage area, transmission data rate, and applicability, refer to the link layer designs of protocols. This paper presents a study of proposed link layer protocols that are used in IoT grouped by short and long distance coverage. For short range protocols, this article study the following: Radio Frequency Identification (RFID), Near Field Communication (NFC), Bluetooth Low Energy (BLE), Low-Rate Wireless Personal Area Networks (LR-WPANs), Z-Wave and IEEE 802.11 a/b/g/n/ah. For the long range protocols, Narrow Band IoT (NB-IoT), Long Term Evolution (LTE), Long Range Protocol (LoRa), and SigFox protocols are considered. A comparative study is performed for each group of protocols, considering their characteristics in order to provide a guideline for researchers and application developers to select the right communication protocol for different applications.

View PDFchevron_right
BSMAC: A Hybrid MAC Protocol for IoT Systems
Mrinal Naskar

2016 IEEE Global Communications Conference (GLOBECOM), 2016

This paper proposes a new medium access control (MAC) protocol for low power sensor devices, suitable for IoT systems. IEEE 802.15.4 standard is suitable for low power wireless personal area network (WPAN) but it does not satisfy the data rate and reliability requirements for IoT systems in a 5G wireless network. We have observed that unnecessary packet drop takes place due to beacon superframe broadcasting during data transmission and it is the primary reason for the standard's datarate and reliability shortfall. This problem represents a scenario where data transmission takes place with the lack of available time for data transmission in that superframe duration. To overcome this lacuna, we incorporate backoff freezing mechanism, where the backoff counter freezes whenever the available time for data transmission is insufficient in that superframe duration. A novel sleep protocol is designed to reduce power consumption in idle states too. The proposed MAC protocol is modeled using a 3dimensional Markov chain for analytical performance evaluation. Analytical results are verified with the simulation run in ns-2.35. Proposed MAC with sleep protocol significantly outperforms the existing state-of-the-art protocols.

View PDFchevron_right
On the design of MAC protocol and transmission scheduling for Internet of Things
Kai Li

2016 IEEE Region 10 Conference (TENCON), 2016

With the ubiquitous sensing enabled by wireless sensor network technologies, Internet of Things (IoT) is developed to many areas of modern day living. The inexpensive IoT devices and platforms capable of wireless communications enable the ability to measure, infer and understand environmental indicators, from delicate ecologies and natural resources to urban environments. In this paper, we firstly investigate a scalable multimode-based MAC protocol, IoT-MAC, which consists of a channel contention period and a data transmission period, to reduce contention of channel access due to coexistence of many IoT devices. Secondly, we study a data transmission scheduling algorithm to maximise data collection under the constraints of radio link quality and remaining energy of the IoT node, while ensuring a fair access to the radio channel. To study the performance of data reception rate, packet loss rate and latency, we evaluate the IoT-MAC and scheduling algorithm with varying data rate and d...

View PDFchevron_right
Narrowband Internet of Things (NB-IoT): From Physical (PHY) and Media Access Control (MAC) Layers Perspectives
Muhammad Monsurul Alam

Sensors, 2019

Narrowband internet of things (NB-IoT) is a recent cellular radio access technology based on Long-Term Evolution (LTE) introduced by Third-Generation Partnership Project (3GPP) for Low-Power Wide-Area Networks (LPWAN). The main aim of NB-IoT is to support massive machine-type communication (mMTC) and enable low-power, low-cost, and low-data-rate communication. NB-IoT is based on LTE design with some changes to meet the mMTC requirements. For example, in the physical (PHY) layer only single-antenna and low-order modulations are supported, and in the Medium Access Control (MAC) layers only one physical resource block is allocated for resource scheduling. The aim of this survey is to provide a comprehensive overview of the design changes brought in the NB-IoT standardization along with the detailed research developments from the perspectives of Physical and MAC layers. The survey also includes an overview of Evolved Packet Core (EPC) changes to support the Service Capability Exposure F...

View PDFchevron_right

Related topics

  • Computer Science
  • Future Internet

    • Cited by

    Review and Evaluation of MAC Protocols for Satellite IoT Systems Using Nanosatellites
    Sandra Cespedes

    Sensors

    Extending the internet of things (IoT) networks to remote areas under extreme conditions or for serving sometimes unpredictable mobile applications has increased the need for satellite technology to provide effective connectivity. However, existent medium access control (MAC) protocols deployed in commercial satellite networks were not designed to offer scalable solutions for the increasing number of devices predicted for IoT in the near future, nor do they consider other specific IoT characteristics. In particular, CubeSats—a low-cost solution for space technology—have the potential to become a wireless access network for the IoT, if additional requirements, including simplicity and low demands in processing, storage, and energy consumption are incorporated into MAC protocol design for satellite IoT systems. Here we review MAC protocols employed or proposed for satellite systems and evaluate their performance considering the IoT scenario along with the trend of using CubeSats for I...

    View PDFchevron_right
    Trends in home automation systems and protocols
    S. Kaminaris

    TECHNOLOGIES AND MATERIALS FOR RENEWABLE ENERGY, ENVIRONMENT AND SUSTAINABILITY: TMREES19Gr

    Contemporary Home Automation Systems have become very popular to the end-user as they provide them easy and convenient ways to control their home and their appliances with the use of a networking device such as a PC, tablet or a Smartphone. The market provides a plethora of home automation protocols and technologies, with the end user having a difficult decision as to which of these is the most appropriate. Unfortunately, such a decision is a complex, timeconsuming task, as technology solutions are changing over the years. The existing standards and protocols do not provide always enough information for the extraction of the appropriate metrics for comparing their technical characteristics and capabilities. This paper is an effort to present a complete information set about the most popular home automation protocols and technologies including standardized, proprietary and open source implementations. In addition, an approach from the end user's perspective is given, by providing critical details for administrators about their management and configuration procedures. Finally, the last section of this paper presents for each protocol its realization according to the OSI 7-layer model, in an effort to extract their common characteristics and differentiations.

    View PDFchevron_right
    Implementation of a Topology Independent MAC (TiMAC) Policy on a Low-Cost IoT System
    Vasilis Dragonas

    Future Internet

    The emerging new paradigm under the fifth generation of wireless communications technologies (5G) and high expectations for massively expanding today’s Internet of Things (IoT) under 5G, are expected to support a large plurality of low-cost devices for an all-increasing number of new IoT applications. Many emerging IoT applications are going to take advantage of techniques and technologies that have high demands from low-cost devices in terms of processing large amounts of data and communication. For example, in systems based on fog computing technology, low-cost devices have to assign some of their limited resources for processing purposes. Considering the drawbacks emerging from using low-cost devices and the fact that many applications are in need for time-constrained approaches, TDMA-based Medium Access Control (MAC) policies need to be revisited and implemented in low-cost devices of today. In this sense, a policy independent of the underlying topology, TiMAC policy, is conside...

    View PDFchevron_right
    Energy Efficiency in Short and Wide-Area IoT Technologies—A Survey
    Eljona Zanaj

    Technologies

    In the last years, the Internet of Things (IoT) has emerged as a key application context in the design and evolution of technologies in the transition toward a 5G ecosystem. More and more IoT technologies have entered the market and represent important enablers in the deployment of networks of interconnected devices. As network and spatial device densities grow, energy efficiency and consumption are becoming an important aspect in analyzing the performance and suitability of different technologies. In this framework, this survey presents an extensive review of IoT technologies, including both Low-Power Short-Area Networks (LPSANs) and Low-Power Wide-Area Networks (LPWANs), from the perspective of energy efficiency and power consumption. Existing consumption models and energy efficiency mechanisms are categorized, analyzed and discussed, in order to highlight the main trends proposed in literature and standards toward achieving energy-efficient IoT networks. Current limitations and o...

    View PDFchevron_right
    A Survey on the Application of WirelessHART for Industrial Process Monitoring and Control
    Farooq A Khanday

    Sensors

    Industrialization has led to a huge demand for a network control system to monitor and control multi-loop processes with high effectiveness. Due to these advancements, new industrial wireless sensor network (IWSN) standards such as ZigBee, WirelessHART, ISA 100.11a wireless, and Wireless network for Industrial Automation-Process Automation (WIA-PA) have begun to emerge based on their wired conventional structure with additional developments. This advancement improved flexibility, scalability, needed fewer cables, reduced the network installation and commissioning time, increased productivity, and reduced maintenance costs compared to wired networks. On the other hand, using IWSNs for process control comes with the critical challenge of handling stochastic network delays, packet drop, and external noises which are capable of degrading the controller performance. Thus, this paper presents a detailed study focusing only on the adoption of WirelessHART in simulations and real-time appli...

    View PDFchevron_right
    580 California St., Suite 400
    San Francisco, CA, 94104
    © 2025 Academia. All rights reserved