Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Dr. Usman Ilyas IEEE paper

Dr. Usman Ilyas IEEE paper

Ratings: (0)|Views: 205 |Likes:
Published by m_usama
Dr. Usman Ilyas IEEE paper
Dr. Usman Ilyas IEEE paper

More info:

Categories:Types, Research
Published by: m_usama on Nov 24, 2012
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial


Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less





Measurement Based Analysis and Modeling of theError Process in IEEE 802.15.4 LR-WPANs
 Muhammad U. Ilyas and Hayder Radha
Department of Electrical & Computer EngineeringMichigan State University/ 2120 Engineering BuildingEast Lansing, MI 48823{ilyasmuh, radha}@egr.msu.edu
Knowledge of the error process and related channelparameters in wireless networks is invaluable and highlyinstrumental in a broad range of applications. Under the IEEE802.15.4 Low Rate-Wireless Personal Area Networks (LR-WPAN) standard, compliant devices are capable of providingtwo pieces of information about the channel conditions alongwith each received packet, the Link Quality Indication (LQI) andReceived Signal Strength Indication (RSSI). Together theyconstitute a form of Channel State Information (CSI). This work is based on statistical and information theoretic analysis of a veryextensive data set of wireless channel traffic between atransmitter and receiver, called packet traces. Data is collected ina variety of documented environments. To our knowledge, this isthe first detailed trace collection effort for this type of network.The traces distinguish themselves from data sets of other studiesin that they record individual bit errors as well as packets thatare never detected by receivers. First, we provide a detailedanalysis of the IEEE 802.15.4 wireless channel. More specifically,we provide a detailed analysis of the Bit Error Rate (BER)process at individual bit and on a packet-by-packet basis. Weexplore the relationship between the packet-level BER processand the LQI and RSSI processes (also observable on a packet-by-packet). The analysis shows that measurements of both LQI andRSSI provide information that allows us to reduce uncertaintyabout the BER. Secondly, we develop a model of the BER processthat is driven by observable CSI parameters. Thirdly, wecontinue our analysis with measurements of channel memory atthe packet and bit level. We determine that the wireless channel 2bits memory. At the packet level we observe that the amount of channel memory is more varied.
 Keywords-Performance evaluation; IEEE 802.15.4; wireless sensor networks; wireless channel; channel state information; channel modeling; error process.
 The bit errors and packet losses that are observed at thewireless receiver’s Medium Access Control (MAC) layer aremodeled by a random process that is commonly referred to asthe
error process
. An understanding of the error process is of fundamental importance for a wide variety of reasons, e.g.design of high level (network layer and above) protocols,retransmission strategies, error correction and concealmentstrategies etc.The IEEE 802.15.4 [1] Low Rate-Wireless Personal Area Network (LR-WPAN) standard is of particular interest to theWireless Sensor Network (WSN) research community becauseit is the first wireless communication standard built arounddevices with severe constraints on power consumption rates.Thus it is widely anticipated that IEEE 802.15.4 will play amajor role in WSN applications. This paper analyzes the performance and contributes to the understanding of IEEE802.15.4 based LR-WPANs.The objective of this empirical study is it to gain better insightinto the time varying error process. We begin our analysiswith a correlation analysis of the BER (Bit Error rate), LQIand RSSI processes and establish that if a packet’s BER isknown to be non-zero, i.e. it has failed the Cyclic RedundancyCheck (CRC) test, it is correlated with its LQI and RSSImeasurements. Based on the knowledge and the empiricaldataset we come up with a model for the BER’s probabilitydensity function (PDF) driven by CSI measurements. Weevaluate the utility of this model in different environments bydividing the data set along lines of different collectionsenvironments, generating models for each of them and, usingtraces from other environments as test data, measuringdivergence between models and test data. We further analyzethe amount of memory in IEEE 802.15.4 LR-WPAN links atthe packet, symbol and bit level.
 Previous Work 
To develop a better understanding of wireless channels’ error and loss processes, several recent data trace collection effortshave targeted a variety of wireless networks, including 3Gnetworks ([12]), WaveLAN and 802.11x WLANs ([11],[13],[14],[18],[20]), CC1100 based MICA2 networks ([19])and 802.15.4 LR-WPANs ([15],[16],[17],[21]). All of theseefforts involve the collection of received data while offeringdifferent levels of insight and resolution (e.g., bit-, byte-,and/or packet-level) into the error process on wirelesschannels. These studies usually focus on what is referred to asthe
residual error 
process. In general,
residual errors
are bit-level or packet-level errors that are not corrected by the PHY-layer and hence appear at the MAC-layer. Such errors(usually) cause packet drops in traditional wireless MAC protocols such as IEEE 802.11 and IEEE 802.15.4. Most the
This full text paper was peer reviewed at the direction of IEEE Communications Society subject matter experts for publication in the IEEE INFOCOM 2008 proceedings.
978-1-4244-2026-1/08/$25.00 © 2008 IEEE
Authorized licensed use limited to: Michigan State University. Downloaded on March 30, 2009 at 23:21 from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
 error trace collection efforts restrict the error processresolution to packet-level information. The most that can beextracted from packet-level traces are statistics such as
Packet Reception Rates (PRR), the fraction of transmitted packets that are received error-free and pass the CyclicRedundancy Check (CRC).
Packet Error Rates (PER), the fraction of transmitted packets that are received with at least one bit in error andfail the CRC test.
Packet Loss Rates (PLR), the fraction of transmitted packets that are not received at all.By our definition of these terms,1
. (1)Khayam, et al. work in [13] was arguably the first bit-levelresidual error trace collection efforts for 802.11b/g WLANs.Meanwhile, there have been other trace collection efforts for the more recent IEEE 802.15.4 LR-WPAN, but like most802.11 trace collections these too are limited to theobservation of packets that pass the CRC test. Table 1tabulates the statistics and observable parameters in variousworks.The collection of data packets for traces is often augmented byrecording of additional information with each packet. Variouswireless networking standards require measurement of  physical layer channel conditions. For example, 802.11b/grequires the measurements of Signal-to-Noise Ratio (SNR)and background traffic noise level. Similarly, 802.15.4mandates the measurement of Received Signal StrengthIndication (RSSI) and Link Quality Indication (LQI) of eachreceived packet. We refer to all such measurements by theumbrella term Channel State Information (CSI). As the side- by-side comparison in Table 1 shows, our error traces are byfar the most detailed in terms of data collection and therecording of CSI. Our traces distinguish themselves in thatthey log are he only ones to provide bit-level residual error traces for IEEE 802.15.4, the positions of lost packets, as wellas partially lost packets, a phenomenon, which is probablyunique to 802.15.4, and whose cause is explained a little later in this paper. Further details regarding the meaning anddefinition of these parameters will also be provided.The remainder of this paper is organized as follows. Section II provides a detailed description of the setup used for trace datacollection. Section III establishes the degree to which CSImeasures provide information about the BER process. SectionIV uses Maximum Likelihood Estimation (MLE) to arrive at aCSI driven model of the BER process. Section V evaluates themodel. Section VI analyses collected data to measures bit and packet-level channel memory. Section VII concludes the paper.II.
 To our knowledge, this is the first detailed trace collectioneffort for IEEE 802.15.4. These traces differ from previouslycollected ones in quantitative and qualitative aspects. Wecollected error traces of approximately 10 million packets in away that provides, to the authors’ best knowledge, anunprecedented level of insight into the effects of the wirelesschannel state on the level of corruption of packets.
 Experimental Setup
The trace-collection setup is depicted in Figure 1 and consistsof a Crossbow MPR2400 MICAz mote [6] transmitter andanother MICAz mote mounted on a Crossbow MIB600Ethernet gateway [7] as receiver. The gateway is connected toa host PC running an application that continuously retrievesdata from the receiver and logs it. All traces were collectedwhile operating in channel 26 in the 2.480 GHz band. Thereason for choosing channel 26 was the fact that it is thechannel in the frequency spectrum that is the farthest removedfrom all 802.11bg frequency channels. As Srinivasan, Dutta,Tavakoli and Levis reported in [17], traffic from 802.15.4devices appears to co-located 802.11bg WLAN (30 mW max.transmit power) sharing the same spectrum as noise and drownall 802.15.4 transmissions (1mW max. transmit power). Dueto the many 802.11bg WLANs that are located in the vicinityof some trace collection environments the interference in any802.15.4 channel that is shared by 802.11b/g would have beensignificant. The selection of channel 26 does not completelyeliminate interference from nearby 802.11b/g channels, but itreduces it to a tolerable level.
 Packet Payload 
TinyOS [5] is one of the most widely used open sourceoperating system in WSN devices. TinyOS v1.1 allowsvarious packet formats to be transmitted. We suitablymodified code to enable the standard 802.15.4 frame formatwhich TinyOS v1.1 labels
CC2420 Frame Format 
(after theChipcon CC2420 chipset [8] used in MICAz devices). Strictlyspeaking, the term packet refers to the Protocol Data Unit(PDU) exchanged between network layers of the transmitter and receiver while the term frame is used for PDU’sexchanged between MAC layers. However, since our analysis
. Network PRR PLR/PER BitErrorsTruncatedPacketsCSIavailable Nguyen[11]Wave Lan
Woo [18] RFM/MICA
Reis [20] 802.11x
This full text paper was peer reviewed at the direction of IEEE Communications Society subject matter experts for publication in the IEEE INFOCOM 2008 proceedings.
Authorized licensed use limited to: Michigan State University. Downloaded on March 30, 2009 at 23:21 from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
 is restricted to the MAC layer alone there is little cause for confusion and we will be using these two termsinterchangeably to refer to MAC layer PDUs. The exact MACframe format used is shown in Figure 2. The size of the frameis 41 bytes and comprises of a 1 byte Length Field, 2 byteFrame Control Field (FCF), 1 byte Sequence Number, 2 byteDestination PAN ID, 2 byte Destination Address, 1 byte Typefield, 1 byte Group field, 29 bytes of data/payload followed bya 2 byte Frame Check Sequence (FCS) containing a CRC. Thecontents of the payload field are of our own choosing andconsist of 3 unused bytes, the Source Address, the DestinationAddress and 6 copies of a 32 bit sequence number. Thesequence number in the data/payload is used to keep track of lost packets. If the sequence number between twoconsecutively received packets skips one or more numbersthat is indicative of a packet loss. The sequence number fieldalone proves insufficient for this task in the face of long fades.Also, a single bit error in the 1 byte counter could easily become a source of ambiguity (did we just lose two longsequences of packets or receive bit errors in the sequencenumber field?). Note that transmitted packets differ only in the1 byte sequence number in the header and the six 32 bitsequence numbers in the payload, and the CRC. For a particular trace all remaining bits remain unchanged.However, since the wireless channel will introduce bit errorsthe copies of the sequence number used to track packet lossesin the received packet may differ. For this purpose we use amajority vote of the received sequence numbers to determinethe transmitted sequence number. From this we reconstruct thecontents of the Data/Payload field and hence the transmitted packet.
Trace Generation
Bit-level error traces can be generated by comparing atransmitted packet with its received version. A simple bit-wiseXOR operation on the transmitted and received packets yieldsa bit pattern in which a zero (‘0’) signifies a bit that is receivedwithout error while a one (‘1’) represents an inverted bit. Weobserve that in some cases the length of the received packet isshorter than the transmitted packets. This constitutes a partialloss and we use the term
 partially lost packets
to refer to such packets. An erased bit in a received packet will be denoted bya two (‘2’) in the error trace. Partially erased packets arelogged when bits in the MAC header’s Length Field areinverted and the receiver stops listening to the wirelesschannel prematurely. It has also been observed that if bits inthe Length Field are inverted in such a way that the length of the incoming packet appears longer than actual the length of the logged packet still equals that of the transmission.Although the Length field in the received packet may falselyindicate a longer packet, the absence of a carrier signal allowsthe receiver to detect the end of the transmission.
Channel State Information
Each received packet’s logged entry is accompanied withthree pieces of packet level CSI parameters. The first is theFCS status of the packet modeled by random variable
withthe n
packet’s FCS status is represented by
. Ordinarilyreceivers only distinguish between two states, i.e.
 FCS Pass
 (denoted by
[ ] 0
) if the CRC value in the FCS fieldmatches the CRC of the received packet, and
 FCS Fail 
if doesnot. Since we have knowledge of packet erasures and size of transmitted packets we extend the definition of FCS status toaccommodate the reason for failure. We restrict the definitionof 
 FCS Fail BE 
(denoted by
[ ] 1
) to mean that the size of a received packet matches the size of the transmitted packetand the CRC failure is due to Bit Errors (BE). We further define two additional states,
 FCS Fail PL
(denoted by
[ ] 2
) and
 FCS Fail CL
(denoted by
[ ] 3
), where PLand CL are abbreviations for Partial Loss and Complete Lossrespectively. Packets that are partially lost cannot pass theCRC test and are marked FCS Fail PL. Packets that are notreceived at all, i.e. when the decoded Sequence Number atreceiver skips, are marked FCS Fail CL.
Figure 1. Equipment setup for trace collection.Figure 2. CC2420 MAC frame format used for experiments.
Figure 3. Office deployment environment.
Figure 4. Residential deployment environment.
This full text paper was peer reviewed at the direction of IEEE Communications Society subject matter experts for publication in the IEEE INFOCOM 2008 proceedings.
Authorized licensed use limited to: Michigan State University. Downloaded on March 30, 2009 at 23:21 from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.

You're Reading a Free Preview

/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->