IET Communications

Review Article

Ultra-dense LoRaWAN: Reviews and ISSN 1751-8628

Received on 15th November 2018
Revised 29th August 2019
challenges Accepted on 12th September 2019
E-First on 14th April 2020
doi: 10.1049/iet-com.2018.6128
www.ietdl.org

Mohammed Alenezi1 , Kok Keong Chai1, Yue Chen1, Shihab Jimaa2

1School of Electronic Engineering and Computer Science, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK
2Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, Khalifa University, Abu Dhabi, UAE
E-mail: m.alenezi@qmul.ac.uk

Abstract: Internet of Things (IoT) is one of the most cited terms within the communication research communities. Next
generation wireless networks technologies are expected to have massive-connections of tens of billions of devices. Such a
huge number of devices raised a number of concerns in regards to how much accessible resources are available and what are
the best technologies for managing those resources, all in order to avoid shutdowns/collapses in every means. In terms of
wireless networks, and in regards to energy being the backbone of IoT devices, Low Power Wide Area Networks (LPWAN)
technologies are considered to be a potential solution for IoT applications. In particular, this study reviews Long-Range (LoRa)
technology and advances in the literature of LoRaWAN protocol to date. Furthermore, it discusses the challenges in LoRaWAN
and diverts the attention towards applying Ultra-Dense Network concept on LPWAN.

1 Introduction that LoRa Packet loss is 20% for indoor mobile applications whilst
for indoor fixed applications for the same distances, loss is less
The world is anticipating hundreds of billions [1] of low-powered than 2%. This is due to the fact that mobile end-devices may
(battery supplied) devices, such as sensors, to be used across a encounter bad reception conditions.
range of applications such as smart agriculture, smart cities, smart Within the last 5 years, applications that deploy LoRaWAN
environment, smart healthcare, smart homes and buildings, smart have grown tremendously. Three well known areas of such
industrial control, smart metering, smart supply chain & logistics applications are medical [10], agriculture monitoring [11], and
and smart street lightening. These devices that transmit and receive smart city [12].
data have been classified as Internet of Things (IoT). A number of Specifically, LoRa attracted quite a few applications in remote
protocols have been designed for Low Power Wide Area Networks areas. Li and Zhu [13] have reported the shortcomings for first
(LPWAN). LPWAN protocols include SigFox, NarrowBand-IoT generation Sailing Monitoring System by using 3G. These
(NB-IoT) and LoRa. LoRa is gaining popularity over NB-IoT and shortcomings are limited coverage and power consumption. They
SigFox due to support by the industry such as LoRa Alliance, IBM, have redesigned the system mainly to use LoRa technology. They
CISCO and more, providing bitrate from 100 to 10,000 bit/s, have used LoRa settings with SF 7 and 125 kHz BW in the new
providing long range coverage (>10 km), having simple and Sailing Monitoring System. The results have met the trade-off of
effective MAC, low cost, having less complex modulation and in data rate, coverage and link budget. Applications using LoRaWAN
return less power consumption, mobility support and providing is increasing proving that LoRaWAN is the most efficient LPWAN
separate operation style (can be integrated in any network as ‘do it technology.
yourself style’) [2]. However, more gateways and certainly more end-devices
A massive-IoT scenario [3] revealed 10,000 households with deployment within a certain area, i.e. UDN scenario, the more
connected devices such as water, electricity and gas meters, within interferences occur which result in more collisions and hence more
each household in an area of one kilometre square. Other devices delays. In addition, collisions minimise battery life.
such as vending machines, rental bike monitors and car The paper reviewed all possible topologies that could form
accelerometers are deployed in the same area. Typical data size per UDN and presented a structured topology that can be scaled up. A
each of the aforementioned IoT devices range between 250 and structured-topology between LoRa gateways and end-devices mean
300 bytes (including payload, MAC layer overhead and higher structured timing for transmitting and receiving data packets and
layer overhead) which can be ideally served by LPWAN hence, reduce the collision rate. This requires a novel network
technologies [3, 4]. IoT is expanding and LoRaWAN is one of the topology and this paper presents a mathematical and graphical
best IoT serving protocols. topology model.
However, the burst in IoT massive-connections indicates the The paper focuses on discussing the details behind LPWAN and
future need for Ultra-Dense Network (UDN) to be adapted reveals LoRa modulation scheme, the orthogonality of a plurality
efficiently by any technology meant for serving IoT devices. A of signals, software & hardware emulators and simulators. In
network with more than 1000 access points distributed within 1 addition, it discusses problems and challenges within LoRaWAN
km2 can be referred to as UDN [5–7]. In this regard, Rizzi et al. [8] protocol. The organisation of the paper is as follows: Section 2
carried out evaluations and demonstrations of LoRaWAN for dense provides an overview of LoRa modulation. Section 3 presents a
systems. Due to LoRa's simple modulation with Chirp Spread review to the latest development of LoRaWAN, its associated
Spectrum (CSS) physical layer, LoRaWAN [2] has higher problems and counteracts methods. Currently, the majority of
immunity to interference in comparison to other LPWAN applications that are adopting LoRa are mapping millions of nodes
technologies. UDN has to be exploited to provide the solution to in one network. Hence, it is forming a challenge for LoRa
elevate the IoT rapid expansion. densification. This is discussed in Section 4. To evaluate an
The efficiency of deploying LoRa is maximised where data application with such a large scale of nodes, there is a need to use
reporting and control may be needed, being indoors or outdoors or software and hardware tools for simulation and emulation
being urban or rural areas. However, Haxhibeqiri et al. [9] reported

IET Commun., 2020, Vol. 14 Iss. 9, pp. 1361-1371 1361

This is an open access article published by the IET under the Creative Commons Attribution License
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/)
 17518636, 2020, 9, Downloaded from https://ietresearch.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1049/iet-com.2018.6128 by UFF - Universidade Federal Fluminense, Wiley Online Library on [12/06/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
purposes. This is encompassed in Section 5. Finally, the paper ends the third one is 3GPP. The list of the three products is displayed in
with a conclusion in Section 6. Table 2.
IoT applications are quite few, but they could be categorised as
2 LoRa overview fixed or mobile. Examples for fixed IoT applications are street
lights and farming. Examples for mobile IoT are vehicles and
LoRa is a long-range wireless communication technology proposed cattle's. For fixed application SigFox, LoRa and NB-IoT are able to
by LoRa Alliance and developed by Semtech [14]. It resides in operate good if they are fixed. However, for fixed applications,
Wireless Metropolitan Area Network (WMAN) using LPWAN LoRa has one interesting feature, Adaptive Data Rate (ADR)
protocol, as shown in Fig. 1. LoRa is aimed at providing wireless (Section 2.4).
network services to long live battery power devices, with low data ADR maximises battery life, range and network capacity for
rate and long distance. each end-device. SigFox and NB-IoT do not have this feature.
Industrial, Scientific and Medical (ISM) bands of the world are SigFox offers only EU 868 frequency band hence the
shown in Fig. 2. The band over North America is 915 MHz while unpopularity in the USA market.
over Europe is 868 MHz. LPWAN products can be approved if it is LoRa and NB-IoT provide uplink and downlink transmissions,
capable of providing the allowed band in a specific geographical while SigFox provides only uplink. Therefore, SigFox cost is the
area. lowest.
Table 1 provides a comparison of products that are able to Hence, Table 2 shows that LoRa is the best candidate among
provide network connectivity to a set of sensors. This table is based other LPWAN products with reference to mobility, worldwide
on long range, low data rate, low power and cost. It indicates that availability, radio module cost and uplink/downlink capabilities.
‘LPWAN technology is perfectly suited for connecting devices that Full LoRa network protocol is shown in Fig. 3 as depicted from
need to send small amounts of data over a long range, while [2]. The Sensor (end-device), which is processor based device,
maintaining a long battery life’ [15]. transmits and receives, among other details, the sensing values to
Within LPWAN, there are three products that are using different LoRa gateway via the antenna physical layer. The Gateway Host,
modulation techniques. These are SigFox, LoRa and NB-IoT. The similarly receives and transmits to the end-devices via the antenna
modulation techniques of SigFox and LoRa are proprietary while physical layer. The last block of Fig. 3 is the Network Server,
routes backward and forward messages from end-devices to a
specific application. In addition, the Gateway Host could be
interfaced to a Network Server via Ethernet, 3G or WiFi protocols.
As shown in Fig. 4, LoRa consists of three layers [2].
First is the physical layer or modulation layer based on Chirp
Spread Spectrum (CSS) technique (Section 2.1). In addition, the
physical layer offers four regional ISM bands, including EU and
US allowed bands. The SX1276/77/78/79 chips transceivers,
produced by Semtech, form the physical layer for LoRa. Second is
the Media Access Control (MAC) layer protocol (LoRaWAN) with
specific access network architecture. MAC protocol manages
uplink and downlink between gateways and end-devices.
LoRaWAN provides three different classes; Class A, Class B and
Class C devices. Class A, is the lowest power end-device system
for applications where the end-devices are pure ALOHA based.
Fig. 1 LPWAN versus other wireless networks Class B, where the end-device receives a time synchronised beacon
from the gateway. Class C, is continuous Wireless Metropolitan
Area Network where end-device use more power to operate but it
offers the lowest latency for server to end-device communications.
Third is the application layer.
LoRa adopts star topology, where a set of LoRa end-devices are
connected wireless to LoRa gateway. End-devices communicate in
their time or frequency slot with LoRa gateway. The radio link
between LoRa gateway and LoRa end-devices can be very long
which leads to less battery life. However, LoRa end-devices are
able to rest between message transmissions, which means LoRa
end-devices consumes less energy. Star topology is mainly aimed
for LPWAN. It is also widely used in WiFi and mobile (cellular)
networks.
Fig. 2 World ISM bands

Table 1 Existing wireless protocols

Bluetooth BLE ZigBee WiFi Cellular M2M LPWAN
long range (>10 km) × × × × ✓ ✓
low data rate (<5 K bit/s or 20–256 bytes per message) ✓ ✓ ✓ × × ✓
low power (to last 5–years on single battery) ✓ ✓ ✓ × × ✓
low cost ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ × ✓

Table 2 Existing LPWAN devices

SigFox LoRa NB-IoT
mobility poor good poor
availability europe worldwide worldwide
cost radio modules <$5 <$10 <$12
uplink/downlink uplink both both

1362 IET Commun., 2020, Vol. 14 Iss. 9, pp. 1361-1371

This is an open access article published by the IET under the Creative Commons Attribution License
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/)
 17518636, 2020, 9, Downloaded from https://ietresearch.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1049/iet-com.2018.6128 by UFF - Universidade Federal Fluminense, Wiley Online Library on [12/06/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
thousands of nodes to be connected to form a mesh topology, hence
the term Ultra-Dense Network (UDN).

2.1 LoRa physical layer

For ease of understanding, design, programming and simulation/
modelling of LoRa technology, terminologies such as Chip,
Symbol, Chirp, Spreading Factor SF, Coding Rate CR and Data
Rate DR are described here.

2.1.1 Chips, symbols, chirps and spreading factor: A chip is a

pulse that sweeps from f Low (−BW/2) to f High (+BW/2), BW is
bandwidth. The number of chips forms a symbol. For example,
Fig. 3 LoRa network protocol – LoRa gateway host, sensor and network assume a symbol value is between 1 and 128, this number would
server block diagram be one of the combinations of 27 = 128 chips. Fig. 5 illustrates an
example of symbol values within 128 chips.
The chip rate (Rc) and symbol rate (Rs) are expressed in the
following equations:

Rc = chip rate = chips/second (1)

Rs = symbol rate = symbols/second (2)

The chip is equivalent to one pulse of the BW. Hence

Fig. 4 LoRa three layers
1
Rc = (3)
BW

where SF = {7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12}. There are 2SF combinations of

symbols that can be transmitted over the BW. Therefore, the (Rs)
from (2) can be expressed in terms of BW as shown in the
following equation:

BW
Rs = (4)
2SF

To estimate the processing gain of Rc and Rs, the term Spreading

Factor (SF) was emerged. LoRa has been designed for symbols
with group of sizes N of chips
N ∈ {128, 256, 512, 1024, 2048, 4096}. Equation (5) shows SF in
terms of N

Fig. 5 Example of symbol values within 128 chips SF = log2(N) (5)

To gain the highest throughput with the lowest power consumption

but for short distances, SF should be set to 7 [2]. At SF12, the
distance is at maximum but data rate is at the lowest [2].
LoRa modulation deploys CSS. In CSS technique, first
developed for radar applications in the 1940's [16], the frequency
of the generated chirps varies linearly with time to provide low
cost, low power and resilience to interference based solution. So
chirp (sweep) is a signal of continuously increasing frequency (up-
chirp), a ramp from frequency minimum f min = 0 kHz to frequency
maximum f max = 127 kHz as shown in Fig. 6, or continuously
decreasing frequency (down-chirp) f max = 127 kHz to
f min = 0 kHz as shown in Fig. 7.
Fig. 6 Up-chirp with SF = 7. The symbol is one of the combinations of
Fig. 8 is an example of cyclically-shifted up-chirp data Symbol
27 = 128
96, which requires SF of 7, as it is one of the combinations of 27.
The symbol example in Fig. 8, 96 decimal = 1, 100, 000 binary
LoRaWAN supports both uplink and downlink messaging. A
is a modulated data. The number of raw bits that can be encoded by
message from LoRa end-device to LoRa gateway is an uplink
this symbol is 7, which means SF = 7. The sweep signal is divided
message, while a message from LoRa gateway to LoRa end-device
is called a downlink message. in 2SF = 27 = 128 chips. The symbol starts from chip 96 and ends
LoRa deploys its own modified Chirp Spread Spectrum (CSS) with chip 128 and cyclically-shifted from chips 0 to 95.
modulation. It also deploys a Frequency-Shift Keying (FSK)
modulation with higher data rate (up to 50 kbps) [12]. 2.1.2 Coding rate and data rate: Due to interference, some of
The SX1301/08 Digital Baseband chips for outdoor and indoor the data bits are lost. Error correction bits recover the original lost
LoRaWAN gateways are produced by Semtech. LoRa is well data bits. LoRa uses Forward Error Correction (FEC) scheme to
suited to cover connectivity over, for example a large building avoid a costly re-transmission. FEC requires error correction bits
using star network topology. However, the market is geared (redundant bits) to be added to the data. Though FEC reduces data
towards using LoRa for applications that deploy over 100 throughput but increases the sensitivity of the receiver.

IET Commun., 2020, Vol. 14 Iss. 9, pp. 1361-1371 1363

This is an open access article published by the IET under the Creative Commons Attribution License
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/)
 17518636, 2020, 9, Downloaded from https://ietresearch.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1049/iet-com.2018.6128 by UFF - Universidade Federal Fluminense, Wiley Online Library on [12/06/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
LoRa defined set of values which are referred to as optional header and data payload. Figs. 10 and 11 show the explicit
Code ∈ {1, 2, 3, 4} to calculate the Coding Rate (CR) based on the and implicit header modes, respectively. Both modes are discussed
following equation: in details in [17].
If the payload, coding rate and CRC presence are fixed or
4 known in advance, the implicit mode could be deployed. This
CR = (6)
4 + Code mode reduces the transmission time. Fig. 11 shows the implicit
header mode. More in-depth details on this mode can be found in
Hence CR = {4/5, 4/6, 4/7, 4/8}. So for SF7, Fig. 9 shows the [17].
redundant bits relative to the data bits.
CR could maximise the data rate if less code bits are used. 2.3 LoRa packet time-on-air (ToA)
However, more redundant bits sent to the receiver, LoRa will
consume more power [17]. ToA is a unit to measure the transmission time of LoRa packet, as
DR is defined in the following equation: shown in Fig. 12.
Fig. 13 shows uplink and downlink chirps that contains
Rc 4 preample and payload. A LoRa packet consists of preamble and
DR = SF × × (7) payload symbols. Hence, packet ToA (T packet) is the sum of
2SF 4 + CR
preamble duration (T preamble) and payload duration (T payload).
The values of DR for bandwidths from 125 to 500 kHz with SF7 to T preamble is a function of T s and by using (1), the symbol period
SF12 are discussed in details in LoRa Patent [18]. Table 3 shows can be defined as shown in the following equation:
the orthogonality and non-orthogonality combinations of LoRa.
Ultra-dense LoRa is designed to implement various topologies T s = 1/Rs (8)
including mesh topology with minimum collision rate (Section 4).
The collision rate is directly proportional to the orthogonality of from [17], T preamble is given below:
LoRa as listed in Table 3.
T preamble = (npreanble + 4.25) ∗ T s (9)
2.2 LoRa packet structure
The length of preamble (npreamble) is programmable. The data sheet
The LoRa modem employs two types of packet formats, explicit of [17] describes two registers; RegPreambleMsb and
and implicit modes and comprises of three elements; preamble, RegPreambleLsb, and shows that their functions in LoRa mode is
dedicated to store the length of preamble.
Again from [17], T payload is extracted as shown in the following
equation:

T payload = npayload ∗ T s (10)

From the same reference [17], npayload can be calculated using the
following equation:

8PL − 4SF + 28 + 16CRC − 20IH

npayload = 8 + max (Cr
4(SF − DE)
(11)
+ 4), 0
Fig. 7 Down-chirp with SF = 7. The symbol is one of the combinations of
27 = 128
where PL is the number of bytes of payload and SF is the spreading

factor. IH is the implicit header mode when (0) or explicit header

mode when (1). DE is Low data rate, disabled when (0) or enabled
when (1). CRC is not present in payload when (0) or CRC is
present in payload when (1).
CRC is the programmed coding rate from 1 to 4. Therefore, the
total packet time on air T packet is given below:

T packet = T preamble + T payload (12)

2.4 Adaptive data rate

Adaptive data rate (ADR) is an interesting feature and crucial for
Fig. 8 Example of cyclically-shifted up-chirp data symbol
IoT infrastructure. It allows for high network performance and
enforces scalability. With ADR, LoRa network is able to maximise
battery life, range and network capacity for each end-device. This
particular LoRa's feature is effective to the proposed project ultra-
dense scheme (Section 4). ‘LoRa network allows the end-devices
to individually use any of the possible data rates and TxPower.
This feature is used by the LoRaWAN to adapt and optimise the
data rate and TxPower of static end-devices.’ [2].
The ADR mechanism involves set of LoRa commands and
parameters. ADR commands are LinkADRReq and LinkADRAns.
ADR parameters are ADRParamSetupReq and
ADRParamSetupAns. These commands and parameters are
embedded in LoRa frame format as shown in Fig. 14.
Fig. 14 shows that LoRa protocol consists of layers to include
Fig. 9 Coding rate example for SF7
physical layer, MAC layer and application layer.

1364 IET Commun., 2020, Vol. 14 Iss. 9, pp. 1361-1371

This is an open access article published by the IET under the Creative Commons Attribution License
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/)
 17518636, 2020, 9, Downloaded from https://ietresearch.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1049/iet-com.2018.6128 by UFF - Universidade Federal Fluminense, Wiley Online Library on [12/06/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
Table 3 List of orthogonal and non-orthogonal combinations of SF and BW in kHz
SF 7 8 9 10 11 12 7 8 9 10 11 12 7 8 9 10 11 12
BW 125 125 125 125 125 125 250 250 250 250 250 250 500 500 500 500 500 500
7 125 × × ×
8 125 × × ×
9 125 × ×
10 125 × ×
11 125 ×
12 125 ×
7 250 × ×
8 250 × ×
9 250 × × ×
10 250 × × ×
11 250 × ×
12 250 × ×
7 500 ×
8 500 ×
9 500 × ×
10 500 × ×
11 500 × × ×
12 500 × × ×

Fig. 10 Explicit header mode

Fig. 11 Implicit header mode

Fig. 13 Total packet ToA (T packet) is sum of preamble duration (T preamble)

and payload duration (T payload)

Fig. 12 LoRa packet ToA

LinkADReq and LinkADRAns are MAC commands as specified

by the LoRaWAN specifications [2]. However, each Req/Ans has
the same command identifier (CID). They differ if the message is
uplink or downlink as shown in Table 4. So, one of them should be
used at one time.
FOpts shown in Fig. 14 is used to piggyback MAC commands
on a data message. Args are the optional arguments of the
command.
For a better explanation, this paper shows ADR procedure as
shown in Fig. 15. The network server (via LinkADRReq command)
requests an end-device to perform a rate adaptation. Fig. 14 LoRa frame format
From Fig. 15, an end-device (via LinkADRAns command)
answers to the LinkADRReq command with acknowledgment. Bits Algorithm 1 (see Fig. 16) shows an ADR algorithm with a
1 and 2 for LinkADRAns indicate if TxPower and DataRate have procedure to calculate the margin by the network server if an end-
been set or not. Therefore, when the bits 1 and 2 set to (0), the device requested ADR. If ADR algorithm is executed, the network
command is discarded and the end-device state is not changed. server will be able to enhance the data rate and power consumption
When set to (1), the data rate and TxPower were successfully set. of the sending device by adapting the most efficient data rate.
Note that the LinkADRReq is used for two purposes. The first is In Algorithm 1, NS is the network server and SNR is the signal-
for ADR (requesting data-rate and TxPower). The second is for to-noise ratio. The margin is the range of the expected SNR value
channel-reconfiguration. on which assigning a new ADR is based.

IET Commun., 2020, Vol. 14 Iss. 9, pp. 1361-1371 1365

This is an open access article published by the IET under the Creative Commons Attribution License
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/)
 17518636, 2020, 9, Downloaded from https://ietresearch.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1049/iet-com.2018.6128 by UFF - Universidade Federal Fluminense, Wiley Online Library on [12/06/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
Table 4 6 out of 30 MAC Commands – the last two scalability issues as described in Section 3.1. In Section 3.2, a
commands set ADR [2] mathematical model has been reported to measure throughput to
CID Command Transmitted by Short description determine the reliability packets transmission within LoRaWAN.
End- Gateway LoRa is known with the issue of collision and Section 3.3 reviews
device the impact of adapting ADR technique and LoRa's different
×
modulation classes on latency. LoRaWAN deploys CSS to offer
0x01 ResetInd used by an ABP device to
high immunity to interference. However, Section 3.4 explores
indicate a reset to the
studies for LoRa that has been carried out in urban areas and in
network and negotiate
rural areas and reviews a mathematical model of collision
protocol version
behaviour. The revelation of using higher spreading factor or
0x01 ResetConf × acknowledges ResetInd smaller spreading factor to transmit fixed number of packets over
command the same distance is apprehensive, this is reviewed in Section 3.5.
0x02 LinkCheckReq × used by an end-device to
validate its connectivity to a
3.1 Capacity and scalability
network
0x02 LinkCheckAns × answer to LinkCheckReq Aloÿs et al. [12] carried analysis of LoRaWAN class B end-
command contains the devices. Reliability is achieved by acknowledgment (ACK)
received signal power received for data frames received. In LoRaWAN specifications [19]
estimation indicating to the transmitting data frames take place over one of the two receiving
end-device the quality of windows (RX1 and RX2). This means a delay as a result of the
reception (link margin) time-off period following each transmission receive window. Such
0x03 LinkADRReq × requests the end-device to behaviours in LoRaWAN network raise the question of how
change data rate, transmit feasible are class A and class B end-devices for ultra-relible
power, repetition rate or services using LoRaWAN. Aloÿs et al. [14] deployed a technique
channel to avoid the delay happening as a result of waiting for the receiving
0x03 LinkADRAns × acknowledges the
windows by not sending packets more than the smallest maximum
LinkADRReq
payload size (which was 36 bytes according to their simulation
parameters). However, such a solution has a severe impact on the
capacity, resulting in lower throughput and higher ToA. Of course
class C end-devices provide a constant listing behaviour but at the
expense of very high-power consumption.
Mikhaylov et al. [20] carried out analyses on the capacity and
scalability of LoRa network. Referring to one of a number of
scenarios, LoRaWAN gateway using 3 × 125 kHz channels can
serve several millions end-devices. End-devices with a shorter
distance to the gateway (up to 2.4 km using DR5) have more data
transmission rate (2 kbit/s UP) where further end-devices have a
lower transmission rate (100 bit/s). Note that LoRaWAN adheres to
end-device duty cycle restrictions (EU regulations [21]). More
LoRaWAN scalability scenarios and numeric figures are published
in [21, 22].

3.2 Reliability
Within LoRaWAN, a packet transmission has a serious drawback
to the technology. In regards to transmission drawback, Sørensen et
al. [23] proposed analytical models that estimate the impact of
offered loads on packet error rate. Their models evaluate and
estimate the maximum throughput and maximum loads for reliable
Fig. 15 ADR procedure packets transmission within LoRaWAN.
Aloÿset al. [14] carried out a study of LoRa for IoT. In their
study, LoRa's physical and data link layers performance was
evaluated by field tests and simulations. From the perspective of a
single device maximal throughput, they conducted a test with six
125 kHz channels using a spreading factor of 7–12. Considering a
size of 13 bytes MAC header, 51 bytes packet size was the
maximum payload allowed to be transmitted between the end-
device and the network server. The diagnoses revealed the receive
windows as limiting factors as the device following the initial
transmission has to wait for the two downlink receive windows to
be done before attempting to send another packet. Thus, this limits
the core service behind LoRaWAN, which is allowing a large
number of devices to send data from time to the other. The
proposed solution to the aforementioned limitation is to avoid
sending more than the smallest maximum payload size (36 bytes in
Fig. 16 Algorithm 1: ADR algorithm at pseudocode level
their simulation). However, such solution has a severe impact on
LoRaWAN capacity and results in lower throughput.
3 Related work
This section reviews a set of papers addressing capacity, scalability, 3.3 Latency
reliability, latency, coverage, interference and packet collisions of
LoRa. Since LoRaWAN technology performance depends on the resource
LoRaWAN and LoRa end-devices use class A, class B and class allocation and so it employs ADR where each device selects the
C modulations. Analysing these classes reveals capacity and minimum SF for communicating with the gateway. Cuomo et al.
[24] proposed two approaches aiming to enhance the network

1366 IET Commun., 2020, Vol. 14 Iss. 9, pp. 1361-1371

This is an open access article published by the IET under the Creative Commons Attribution License
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/)
 17518636, 2020, 9, Downloaded from https://ietresearch.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1049/iet-com.2018.6128 by UFF - Universidade Federal Fluminense, Wiley Online Library on [12/06/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
performance by suggesting allocation schemes of SFs to the even in the case of low loads but very low collision rate. They
network devices and trade the ToA. The two approaches are named conclude with the disproportionate relation between latency and
as EXPLoRa-SF and EXPLoRa-TA. EXPLoRa-SF equally collision rate, meaning enhancing one could have severe impact on
allocates more than needed SFs to end-devices by means of lower the other.
SF to devices with better Received Signal Strength Indicator Although LoRaWAN is designed for serving large number of
(RSSI). High SFs provide long range coverage at the expense of devices with minimal need of packets transmissions per day, Rizzi
increased ToA, which results in more interferences and collisions. et al. [8] carried an industrial scenario experiment using
Their second approach EXPLoRa-TA aims to equalisation of ToA LoRaWAN. They adapted a similar approach to Time Slotted
for each device using the same channel by the means of ‘ordered Channel Hopping (TSCH) where using different SFs were used in
waterfiling’. Both approaches, in particular EXPLoRa-TA result in the same timeslot. Their approach results in providing each device
distinct pros in comparison to ADR especially in improving with one communication opportunity per minute and minimised
throughput at high loaded systems (2000 end-devices distributed collision rate due to the accurate time and channel scheduling of
over 200 m from the gateway). TSCH.
Delobel et al. [25] carried out a study on the downlink Although Mikhaylov et al. [27] empirically investigated that
communication delay (performance) for LoRaWAN class B. They SFs used within LoRaWAN is not orthogonal but the transmission
proposed Markov chain-based analytic model in which they can take place successfully when its power is greater than any other
computed the expected transmission delays. In their work they interfering power. Sørensen et al. [23] set out a simple rule in their
shed light on a number of limitations within LoRaWAN class B model that all channels and SFs are orthogonal meaning any two or
namely gateway duty-cycle limitation, conflict between classes A more transmissions take place over the same channel, SF and time
and B and delay before ACKs sub-band availability. Although cause a collision. For that reason, their schemes have multi-channel
duty-cycle limitation that prevents the gateway from sending ALOHA random access (same as the case in [12, 14, 20])
ACKs in the case of a large number of confirmed uplinks which representing LoRaWAN six SFs in six ALOHA channels
results in delays (up to 98.13 s before the use of the next ping slot) (orthogonal) within a sub-band. Again for simplicity, they
was highlighted by Delobel et al. [25], but they assumed all data neglected acknowledgement messages meaning there is no
frames can be acknowledged by gateways in which all ping slots downlink and hence no retransmissions. Using their scheme, they
can be used. were able to quantify the outage caused by collisions by calculating
One more limitation in LoRaWAN specifications [2] is that it the traffic load and hence the collision probability.
does not deter class A devices from sending during ping slots or Neumann et al. [28] ran an experiment based on an indoor
gateway beacon transmissions which forms conflicts between class deployment of a gateway and single LoRa Mote (LoRa tool
A and B devices. Delobel et al. [25] assumed blocking class B end- designed to demonstrate specific LoRa modems capabilities). Both
devices from transmitting during beacon transmission time and packet loss and packet error where measured based on the mote
ping slots. Moreover, using a Markov chain model for class B data transmission from various locations (different floors over
confirmed downlink communications, they showed that increasing different distances). In terms of packet loss and packet error, results
the data-rate results in reduced frames ToA. In addition, they have vary based on the end-device location. Results showed that devices
also reduced the delay by increasing the number of sub-bands as with lowest data rate (DR0) located on different floors have packet
larger sub-band numbers allows more frames transmissions. Delay loss decreasing as the device moves further from the gateway. The
was also reduced significantly by increasing the ping periods. gateway experienced packet loss of 25% when the device used
DR0 at close distance. Vice versa, using higher data rates (DR5)
3.4 Collision rate showed an increase of the packet loss at further distances. The
gateway experienced packet loss of 27% when the device used
In terms of latency, Sørensen et al. [23], with Markov model of the DR5 at further distance (the building basement).
jockeying queue, they created a matrix A, which contains all state One of the issues with LoRa is the collisions as reported by Bor
transition probabilities. Matrix A can be used to evaluate the et al. [29]. This paper defined a set of parameters and formalised a
steady-state probabilities, P, by solving the linear system model of collision behaviour, C(x, y), for LoRa network between
A ⋅ P = 0. Matrix A facilitated the adoption of a Markov model for node x and node y:
LoRaWAN device behaviour in the sub-band selection. For the
sake of simplicity, they assumed a model of only class A devices C(x, y) = O(x, y) ∧ Cfreq(x, y) ∧ Cs f (x, y)
which transmit fixed payload size. In addition, all devices are (13)
assumed to successfully join the network in which there will be no ∧ Cpwr(x, y) ∧ Ccs(x, y)
acknowledgement messages needed (downlink) and hence no
retransmissions. where
Furthermore, for simplicity, they adopted queuing theory of
M/M/c queue in their model taking into account that the mean • Reception overlap, O(x, y): Bor et al. define the reception interval
queue length within M/M/c is twice that of M/D/c. In addition, they (ai, bi) for packet i ∈ N, that is reception i starts at ai and ends at bi.
adopted jockeying M/M/c queue and carried a comparison of their They define the midpoint mi = (ai + bi)/2 and midpoint length
model in terms of latency against the use of only M/D/c queue. di = (bi − ai)/2. Hence, two packets, x and y, overlap when their
Their approach showed lower latency results. reception intervals overlap, defined as
Following LoRaWAN capacity evaluation, Aloÿs et al. [14]
carried a simulation of 500 K packets transmission at a single data O(x, y) = mx − my < dx + dy (14)
point. The results show that the maximum use is 18% of the • Carrier frequency, Cfreq(x, y): The condition when two
channel capacity for 0.48 link load. 60% of packets dropped due to
transmissions collide on CF Cfreq defined as
collisions (collisions happen when two packets transmission time
overlaps). Confirmed messages sent by devices as collisions
solution is not practical, as it will result in retransmitting packets 1 if f x − f y < f threshold
Cfreq(x, y) = (15)
several times and thus more delay. 0 else
Huang et al. [26] mentioned that regulatory and aggregated
duty cycling limitation within LoRaWAN uplink was investigated where f x and f y are the centre frequencies of transmission x and
from the perspectives of latency and collision rate. The proposed y, and f threshold is the minimum tolerable frequency offset.
models tend to analyse the latency and collisions of packets taking • Spreading factor, Csf (x, y): The condition when two receptions
into account sub-channel selection and combining. Results show collide on SF Csf defined as
that sub-band with highest duty cycle provide low latency even in
the case of very high loads but with very high collision rate. Vice 1 if SFx = SFy
versa, sub-band with the lowest duty cycle results in high latency Csf = (16)
0 else

IET Commun., 2020, Vol. 14 Iss. 9, pp. 1361-1371 1367

This is an open access article published by the IET under the Creative Commons Attribution License
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/)
 17518636, 2020, 9, Downloaded from https://ietresearch.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1049/iet-com.2018.6128 by UFF - Universidade Federal Fluminense, Wiley Online Library on [12/06/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
• Power, Cpwr(x, y): The condition when packet x collides with
packet y on received signal strength defined as

1 if (Px‐‐Py) < Pthreshold

Cpwr(x, y) = (17)
0 else

where px is the received signal strength of transmission x and py is

the received signal strength of transmission y and Pthreshold is the
power threshold.
• Timing, Ccs(x, y): Packet x collides with packet y when it overlaps
in its critical section xcs defined as

1 if O(xcs, y)
Ccs(x, y) = (18)
0 else

where the interval for transmission x as

xcs = (ax + T symΔ(N pp − 5), bx), where T sym is the symbol time and
N pp is the number of programmed preamble symbols.

3.4.1 Effect of different SFs on collision rate: A simulator has Fig. 17 Collision rate with a single LoRa gateway
been developed and written to simulate Ccs, a parameter of (13),
using the list of orthogonal and non-orthogonal combinations of SF
with BW that was shown in Table 3. The simulation is applied on
1500 LoRa end-nodes EN.
The simulation results are shown in Fig. 17. It shows six SF
values to serve LoRa end-nodes EN = {100, 200, 300, …, 1500}
randomly distributed around a LoRa gateway using a star topology
scheme.
From Fig. 17, if the number of nodes deployed for one LoRa
gateway is 100, the collision rate for SF12 is low and it is around
9%. On the other hand, if the number of nodes deployed for one
LoRa gateway is 1500, the collision rate for SF12 increases up to
78%.

3.5 Coverage and interference Fig. 18 Network topologies

In LoRa, trading-off the coverage range together with the message (a) Direct topology, (b) Star topology, (c) Cluster topology, (d) Mesh topology
duration results in the data rate (290 bps–50 kbps) allowed to be
transmitted. In [30], LoRaWAN has a coverage range of 2–10 km number of connectivity is required and should be ongoing research
in urban areas and up to 45 km in rural areas. Of course, further the challenges.
end-device is from the gateway the lower date rate offered. Again,
such behaviour raises concerns of how feasible this technology is 4 Requirements for LoRaWAN in UDN
for high-reliable services. Due to Chirp Spread Spectrum (CSS),
LoRa is known to have very high immunity to interferences [24]. The conditional factors for establishing UDN and ultimately
Since LoRa gateways use LoRa CSS physical layer for transmitting insuring its success for large LoRa scale applications. These factors
data between the end-devices and the network server, Aloÿs et al. are, indemnifying delivery of packets with their specified time and
[14] carried out a real-time experiment showing that higher SFs frequency slot, minimising collision rate and maximising battery
results in higher transmitting probability for longer distances (80 life. This requires a novel network topology and this section is
out 100 packets were successfully transmitted over a 2800 m presenting and discussing mathematical and graphical topology
coverage distance) than using lower SFs (zero packets were model.
transmitted on the same distance). UDN is a network topology where all gateways reside in a
Neumann et al. [28] ran an experiment for evaluating end- particular area and communicate with each other. All types of bi-
devices connectivity to a gateway using LoRaWAN. Their model directional communications network topologies are shown in Fig.
consists of one network server, one gateway and one end-device in 18. This section come up with Fig. 18 to simplify the ultra-dense
indoor deployment style, with the packets transmission size of no LoRa network.
more than 17 bytes. Measurements taken based on various The simplest connection is direct network, as shown in Fig.
locations ranging from 0.5 up to 60 m from the gateway and on 18a. The node communicates directly with the gateway. By default
different heights (different floors from where the gateway is is very expensive if there is a large number of nodes. Fig. 18b
deployed). Again, the end-device was only set to be class A. In shows star topology. This is much more economical than direct
terms of RSSI, results showed a slight effect in regards to further connection. The number of nodes is defined by the capability of the
distances but still data packets were successfully transmitted at gateways to transmit and receive data with the end-devices.
their furthest experimental distance of 60 m. Moreover, data rates LoRaWAN protocol dictates star network as stated by IEEE
have no effect on the RSSI but only vary in bit rates and latency. 802.15.4. Hence, for one large building, deploying LoRa system is
Furthermore, in terms of SNR evaluation, results showed no effect cost effective. Cluster topology is shown in Fig. 18c. It requires
as long as the end-device is located at the same floor of the master gateway and slave gateway (cluster heads). The cluster
gateway. The SNR was effected when end-device locations heads do not communicate with each other, so cluster topology is
changed to different floors. This is due to non-line-of-sight (NLOS) limited to some applications. The cost is relatively higher than star
propagation. Placing the end-device in the basement showed an network. Multipurpose connectivity is shown in Fig. 18d and it is
even imploding effect on SNR which results in poor connectivity. called mesh topology. In mesh topology, gateway-nodes are able to
Research studies, experiments and results mainly target the communicate to each other as well as with the main gateway.
local physics aspects of LoRa. A research study into a large Although the cost is higher, it can serve a very large number of

1368 IET Commun., 2020, Vol. 14 Iss. 9, pp. 1361-1371

This is an open access article published by the IET under the Creative Commons Attribution License
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/)
 17518636, 2020, 9, Downloaded from https://ietresearch.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1049/iet-com.2018.6128 by UFF - Universidade Federal Fluminense, Wiley Online Library on [12/06/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
end-devices over large geographical areas. This is a core subject of NTC‐Star = GW + n × EDN (20)
UDN and can be achieved via LoRa with protocol modifications.
Table 5 is an extraction from [31] pros and cons discussion of For example, in a one floor building there are one main gateway,
mesh topology network in terms of scalability, robustness, one wall thermostat and three lights. Hence, using (20), the total
complexity, network planning, latency, power consumption and number of nodes required for star topology is
coverage area, followed by an explanation of each term in regards NTC‐Star = 1 + 1 + 3 = 5 total nodes
to each network topology. Cluster topology shown in Fig. 18c consists of one master
In star topology, messages can be bi-directional transmitted gateway GW , m gateways (cluster heads) and a set of end-devices
from the nodes to the gateway and vice versa. A similar route is to nodes EDN. The following equation formalises cluster topology
be followed in cluster topology. Where in mesh topology, messages
complexity deploying n sensors:
can be transmitted using any of the available nodes. Such
behaviour makes mesh topology much more scalable in
NTC‐Cluster = GW + m × GW + n × EDN (21)
comparison to star and cluster topologies (star and cluster
topologies are scalable up to the maximum available bandwidth).
Star topology is a default feature for LoRa. To scale up LoRa By applying (20) into (21) NTC‐Cluster can be expressed in the
star network is possible if more LoRa gateways are added to the following equation:
network. To scale up LoRa cluster, there is a need to have repeater
node and this is not available. If we ignore the cost, LoRa mesh NTC‐Cluster = NTC‐Star + m × GW (22)
topology can be easily scaled up if each node is LoRa gateway.
In star and cluster topologies, the unavailability of the main For example, in two floors building with a master gateway, each
gateway or the cluster heads result in the whole network being floor has one gateway (cluster head), one wall thermostat and three
down. This is not the case in mesh topology as the messages can be lights. Hence, using (22), the total number of nodes required for
transmitted through other available nearby nodes. In other words, cluster topology is
mesh topology, normally, re-routes its path if one of the gateways/ NTC‐Cluster = 1 + 2 + 2 × (1 + 3) = 11 total nodes
nodes is not responding or slow. For that reason, mesh topology Mesh topology Fig. 18d consists of one master gateway GW , a
appears to be more robust in comparison to star and cluster set of M gateways, and a set of N end-devices nodes EDN. The
topologies as the network robustness is known as an indicative to following equation formalises mesh topology complexity
the quality of the healing technique or fault tolerance.
Adding more nodes/end-devices within mesh topology network NTC‐Mesh = GW + M × GW + N × EDN (23)
result in other nodes having to deal with more messages hopping.
This behaviour makes mesh topology more complex in comparison where M = {m1 + m2 + m3 + ⋯ + mi}, N = {n1 + n2 + n3 + ⋯ + ni}
to star and cluster topologies. Hence, network planning is relatively
and i ∈ IR.
harder in cluster and mesh topologies than star topology.
For example, three buildings with two floors each, in each
Latency and power consumption are low with LoRa star
building, each floor has one wall thermostat and three light sensors,
topology, but it is higher in LoRa cluster topology and the highest
the thermostat and the three light sensors are connected to the
in mesh topology.
floor's gateway. In each building, the two floors gateways are
The deployment in terms of coverage area with star topology is
connected to the building main gateway. The three buildings main
a large building size while LoRa mesh can easily cover a city.
gateways pass the collected data to the master gateway. Hence,
Network topology complexity NTC can be measured by the
using (18), the total number of nodes required for mesh topology is
number of devices deployed to achieve its desired objectives. The NTC‐Mesh = 1 + 3 + 2 + 3 × (2 × (1 + 3)) = 30 total nodes
simplest network topology is the direct topology shown in Fig.
Using mesh topology for LoRa may result in higher latency in
18a, where it only consists of a gateway GW and an end-device
message delivery when comparing to star topology where the
node EDN . The network topology complexity NTC for direct message is directly transmitted between the gateway and the end-
topology is represented in the following equation: device. Similarly, as the nodes act as routers, power consumption is
to be relatively higher than star and cluster topologies where only
NTC‐Direct = GW + EDN (19) the gateway is responsible for exchanging messages with other
gateways and end-devices. However, with tools like artificial
Star topology shown in Fig. 18b consists of one main gateway GW intelligence (AI), the efficiency of the communication between the
and n number of end-devices nodes EDN. The following equation nodes could be minimised which leads to low latency and power
formalises the star topology complexity deploying n (provided consumption. This conclusion is paving the way to efficient UDN
n > 1) sensors: LoRa deployment.

Table 5 Main features of network topologies

Star cluster Mesh
scalability possible possible with possible if each
with more extra hardware node is LoRa
loads in (with repeater gateway
gateway nodes which is
not exist in
LoRa)
robustness not robust not robust robust
complexity not complex complex very complex
network not complex complex very complex
planning
latency low higher highest
power low higher highest
consumption
deployment large building medium building city

IET Commun., 2020, Vol. 14 Iss. 9, pp. 1361-1371 1369

This is an open access article published by the IET under the Creative Commons Attribution License
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/)
 17518636, 2020, 9, Downloaded from https://ietresearch.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1049/iet-com.2018.6128 by UFF - Universidade Federal Fluminense, Wiley Online Library on [12/06/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
6 Conclusion
LoRaWAN has a number of pros that make it a potential
technology for handling IoT applications at large scale. This paper
carried an overview of LoRa modulation and LoRaWAN protocol.
Issues, problems and challenges within LoRa are also discussed in
detail. Moreover, this paper discussed the feasibility of adapting
UDN within LoRaWAN and provided details of Mesh-LoRaWAN
topology for UDN. Furthermore, tools and software for evaluating
LoRaWAN performance are also reviewed. The paper authors
believe that LoRaWAN protocol has a bright future as a solution
for future massive-connections and IoT applications. Since, LoRa
is operating in an unlicensed radio frequency band, the future trend
is that the industry will be encouraged to continue to deploy this
technology to the maximum. However, unlike the licensed radio
Fig. 19 LoRa Hardware
frequency which regulates the transmitted signals, the challenge for
(a) Mbed LoRa Gateway [33], (b) LoRa Microchip [34], (c) Orange LoRa kit [35]
LoRa devices is on how to avoid the chaos in the air and reduce the
chances of high interferences and hence reduce collisions. In future
work, the authors are intending to take this work further and run
5 Development/evaluation tools and software for experiments of Mesh-LoRaWAN in UDN based on real-world
research and development environment scenarios.
To utilise LoRa technology in various applications, the market has
exhibited tools that support researchers and designers to develop 7 References
complete LPWAN and evaluate its performance. Bor et al. [32]
[1] ‘Huawei technologies - 5G: a technology vision’, Available at https://
have presented a performance and capability analysis of a currently www.huawei.com/mediafiles/CORPORATE/PDF/Magazine/WinWin/
available LoRaWAN with its nodes to demonstrate how unique HW_329327.pdf, accessed 20 May 2018
features such as concurrent non-destructive transmissions and [2] ‘LoRa Alliance - LoRa/LoRaWAN specification v1.1’, Available at https://
carrier detection can be employed. lora-alliance.org/resource-hub/lorawantm-specification-v11, accessed 20
March 2019
Since, the modulator/demodulator was produced by Semtech, [3] ‘Ericsson - massive IoT in the city’. Available at https://
evolution boards are available from few suppliers. Some provide www.ericsson.com/en/mobility-report/massive-iot-in-the-city, Accessed 20
Lora Gateway and windows/ISO software tool to configure and run May 2018
LoRa network. Others come with a gateway, two nodes and [4] Xu, J., Yao, J., Wang, L., et al.: ‘Narrowband internet of things: evolutions,
technologies, and open issues’, IEEE Internet Things J., 2018, 5, (3), pp.
windows/ISO software tool. A list of some suppliers are: 1449–1462
[5] López-Pérez, D., Ding, M., Claussen, H., et al.: ‘Towards 1 Gbps/UE in
(a) Mbed launched a gateway development kit at very low cost, as cellular systems: understanding ultra-dense small cell deployments’, IEEE
shown in Fig. 19c. The cost currently is at £17 and comes with a Commun. Surv. Tutor., 2015, 17, (4), pp. 2078–2101
[6] Teng, Y., Liu, M., Yu, F.R., et al.: ‘Resource allocation for ultra-dense
set of drives. The low cost offered the opportunity to some networks: a survey, some research issues and challenges’, IEEE Commun.
researchers to connect ten's of them with one gateway. Surv. Tutor., 2018, 21, pp. 1–36
(b) Microchip 915 MHz LoRa Development Kit for RN2903, as [7] Kamel, M., Hamouda, W., Youssef, A.: ‘Ultra-dense networks: a survey’,
IEEE Commun. Surv. Tutor., 23 May 2016, 18, (4), pp. 2522–2545
shown in Fig. 19b. This kit comes with the gateway, two nodes and [8] Rizzi, M., Ferrari, P., Flammini, A., et al.: ‘Using LoRa for industrial wireless
the software tools. Currently, it is priced at £480. The high cost networks’. IEEE Workshop on Factory Communication Systems (WFCS),
limited some to try only one gateway. Trondheim, Norway, 2017
[9] Haxhibeqiri, J., De Poorter, E., Moerman, I., et al.: ‘A survey of LoRaWAN
(c) Orange Starter Kit LoRa, as shown in Fig. 19a. Currently, it is for IoT: from technology to application’, Sens. MDPI J., 2018, 18, (11), pp.
priced just above £70 for the Gateway. It's reasonable cost has 1–38
encouraged a good number of researchers to try it. [10] Catherwood, P.A., Steele, D., Little, M., et al.: ‘A community-based IoT
personalized wireless healthcare solution trial’, IEEE J. Trans. Eng. Health
Med., 2018, 6, pp. 1–13
Thus, realistic models are needed to enable proper assessment [11] Sartori, D., Brunelli, D.: ‘A smart sensor for precision agriculture powered by
of the performance level. Most of the time IoT concept entails a microbial fuel cells’. IEEE Sensors Applications Symp. (SAS), Catania, Italy,
large number of nodes distributed over a wide geographical area, May 2016, pp. 1–6
therefore forming a high density and large-scale architecture. Tools [12] Adelantado, F., Vilajosana, X., Tuset-Peiro, P., et al.: ‘Understanding the
limits of LoRaWAN’, IEEE Commun. Mag., 2017, 55, (9), pp. 1–7
such as MATLAB can be used to simulate some functionality of [13] Li, L., Zhu, Q.: ‘On the application of LoRa LPWAN technology in sailing
the modulation demodulation scheme. For example, LoRa Chirp monitoring system’. IEEE Wireless On-demand Network systems and
modulation technique can be programmed with MATLAB Services Conf. (WONS), September 2017, pp. 1–4
environment to determine the orthogonality and non-orthogonality [14] Aloÿs, A., Yi, J., Clausen, T., et al.: ‘A study of LoRa: long range & low
power networks for the internet of things’, Sens. MDPI J., 2016, 16, (9), pp.
states. 1–18
However, to simulate collisions in LoRa networks and to [15] ‘Link Labs - low power, wide area networks’. Available athttps://www.link-
analyse scalability for one particular IoT application, Thiemo labs.com, accessed 23 June 2018
Voigt, and Martin Bor, Lancaster University, ‘Lancaster University [16] LoRa/LoRaWAN modulation basics’, Available at https://www.semtech.com/
uploads/documents/an1200.22.pdf, accessed 20 March 2019
- LoRaSim’ [36] have developed LoRaSim which is a discrete- [17] LoRa/LoRaWAN - SX1272/73 Datasheet’ Available at https://
event simulator. LoRaSim can simulate up to 24 gateways with www.semtech.com/uploads/documents/SX1272_DS_V4.pdf, accessed 20
directional antennas and multiple networks. LoRaSim does not February 2019
incorporate the MAC part. [18] ‘Signal concentrator device’ Available at https://patents.google.com/patent/
US20160020932, accessed 25 February 2019
Farooq and Pesch [37] have extended LoRaSim to simulate [19] Yunas, S.F., Valkama, M., Niemelä, J.: ‘Spectral and energy efficiency of
multiple IoT applications within the same LoRaWAN network. ultra-dense networks under different deployment strategies’, IEEE Commun.
This is quite a useful feature to simulate UDN since the user can Mag., 2015, 53, (1), pp. 90–100
specify the number of nodes corresponding to each application and [20] Mikhaylov, K., Petaejaejaervi, J., Haenninen, T.: ‘Analysis of capacity and
scalability of the LoRa low power wide area network technology’. IEEE
the data generation model for each application. Supported data European Wireless Conf., Oulu, Finland, May 2016, pp. 1–6
generation models include exponentially distributed traffic [21] Tanenbaum, A.S., Wetherall, D.J.: ‘The medium access sublayer’ in computer
(Poisson process), randomly distributed traffic and periodic traffic. networks' (Prentice-Hall, U.S., 1996), pp. 243–338
LoRaWANSim is another extension to LoRaSim by adding a MAC [22] Juha, P., Mikhaylov, K., Hämäläinen, M., et al.: ‘Evaluation of LoRa LPWAN
technology for remote health and wellbeing monitoring’. IEEE Inter. Symp.
protocol that is developed by Pop et al. [38]. To study the collision on Medical Information and Communication Technology Conf. (ISMICT),
issue Van den Abeele et al. [39] have developed NS-3 LoRaWAN Worcester, MA, USA, March 2016, pp. 145–149
module.

1370 IET Commun., 2020, Vol. 14 Iss. 9, pp. 1361-1371

This is an open access article published by the IET under the Creative Commons Attribution License
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/)
 17518636, 2020, 9, Downloaded from https://ietresearch.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1049/iet-com.2018.6128 by UFF - Universidade Federal Fluminense, Wiley Online Library on [12/06/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
[23] Sørensen, R.B., Kim, D.M., Nielsen, J.J., et al.: ‘Analysis of latency and [31] ‘Link Labs - Mesh network topology: Pros and Cons For M2M
MAC-layer performance for class a LoRaWAN.’, IEEE Wirel. Commun. Lett., communication’. Available at https://www.link-labs.com, accessed 23 July
2017, 6, (5), pp. 566–569 2018
[24] Cuomo, F., Campo, M., Caponi, A., et al.: ‘EXPLoRa: extending the [32] Bor, M., Vidler, J., Roedig, U.: ‘LoRa for the internet of things’. Proc. of the
performance of LoRa by suitable spreading factor allocations’. IEEE Wireless Int. Conf. on Embedded Wireless Systems and Networks (EWSN '16),
and Mobile Computing, Networking and Communications Conf. (WiMob), Austria, February 2016, pp. 361–366
Rome, Italy, October 2017, pp. 1–8 [33] ‘Digi-Key Electronics - SX1272 RF Transceiver; LoRa®. Available at https://
[25] Delobel, F., Rachkidy, N.E., Guitton, A.: ‘Analysis of the delay of confirmed www.digikey.com/product-detail/en/semtech-corporation/SX1272MB2DAS/
downlink frames in class B of LoRaWAN’. IEEE Vehicular Technology Conf. SX1272MB2DAS-ND/6099191, accessed 10 September 2018
(VTC Spring), Sydney, NSW, Australia, June 2017, pp. 1–6 [34] ‘RS Components Ltd. - Microchip 915 MHz LoRa Development Kit for
[26] Huang, J., Zhou, P., Luo, K., et al.: ‘Two-stage resource allocation scheme for RN2903’. Available at https://uk.rs-online.com/web/p/radio-frequency-
three-tier ultra-dense network’, IEEE China Commun., 2017, 14, (10), pp. development-kits/1224865. accessed 10 September 2018
118–129 [35] ‘SODAQ - Orange Starter Kit LoRa®. Available at https://shop.sodaq.com/
[27] Mikhaylov, K., Petäjäjärvi, J., Janhunen, J.: ‘On LoRaWAN scalability: orange-lora-explorer-kit.html, accessed 10 September 2018
empirical evaluation of susceptibility to inter-network interference’. IEEE, [36] ‘Lancaster University - LoRaSim’. Available at http://
European Conf. on Networks and Communications (EuCNC), Oulu, Finland, www.lancaster.ac.uk/scc/sites/lora/lorasim.html, accessed 28 September 2018
June 2017, pp. 1–6 [37] Farooq, M.O., Pesch, D.: ‘Extending LoRaSim to simulate multiple IoT
[28] Neumann, P., Montavont, J., Noël, T.: ‘Indoor deployment of low-power wide applications in a LoRaWAN’. Int. Conf. on Embedded Wireless Systems and
area networks (LPWAN): a LoRaWAN case study’. IEEE Wireless and Networks, Madrid, Spain, February 2018, pp. 1–3
Mobile Computing, Networking and Communications Conf. (WiMob), New [38] Pop, A.-I., Raza, U., Kulkarni, P., et al.: ‘Does bidirectional traffic do more
York, NY, USA, November 2016, pp. 1–8 harm than good in LoRaWAN based LPWA networks?’. GLOBECOM,
[29] Bor, M., Roedig, U., Voigt, T., et al.: ‘Do LoRa low-power wide-area Singapore, Singapore, December 2017, pp. 1–6
networks scale?’. Modeling, Analysis, and Simulation of Wireless and Mobile [39] Van den Abeele, F., Haxhibeqiri, J., Moerman, I., et al.: ‘Scalability analysis
Systems (MSWiM), Malta, November 2016, pp. 1–9 of large-scale LoRaWAN networks in ns-3’, IEEE Internet Things J, 2017, 4,
[30] de Carvalho Silva, J., Rodrigues, J.J.P.C., Alberti, A.M., et al.: ‘LoRaWAN – pp. 1–13
a low power WAN protocol for internet of things: a review and opportunities’.
IEEE Computer and Energy Science Conf. (SpliTech), Split, Croatia, July
2017, pp. 1–6

IET Commun., 2020, Vol. 14 Iss. 9, pp. 1361-1371 1371

This is an open access article published by the IET under the Creative Commons Attribution License
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/)