This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been

fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI
10.1109/TII.2014.2307016, IEEE Transactions on Industrial Informatics
1

Performance Analysis of ISA100.11a under

Interference from an IEEE 802.11b Wireless
Network
Fadillah Purnama Rezha, and Soo Young Shin, Member, IEEE

Abstract—Recently, the International Society of Automation
released ISA100.11a as an open standard for reliable wireless
networks for industrial automation. ISA100.11a operates in the
2.4-GHz industrial, scientific, and medical (ISM) unlicensed band
and may suffer from interference from other radio technologies
operating in the same band. This coexistence issue can lead
to significant degradation of ISA100.11a performance. In this
work, the performance of the ISA100.11a industrial wireless
network under interference from an IEEE 802.11b wireless
local area network (WLAN) is evaluated. An analytic model
for the coexistence between ISA100.11a and IEEE 802.11b is
suggested. The packet error rate (PER) and average end-to-
end delay are evaluated, where the PER is obtained from the
bit error probability and collision time, while the average end-
to-end delay is investigated from the waiting time in buffer
and the transmission time. Simulation results from the OPNET
modeler are presented to validate the numerical analysis. It
is demonstrated that ISA100.11a achieves acceptable PER and
satisfies the delay requirement for industrial process control and
monitoring even under significant WLAN interference.
Index Terms—ISA100.11a, IEEE 802.11b, interference, coexis-
tence, packet error rate, end-to-end delay.
I. I NTRODUCTION
Recently, the demand for industrial application of wireless
technology has been increasing. Various efforts have been
made by some organizations to introduce wireless technology
to industrial process automation as the industry has started
to realize its potential benefit. Flexibility of network es-
tablishment, mobility of nodes, cost reduction, and ease of
maintenance in an industrial plant are the significant benefits
provided by adopting automation systems in a wireless fash-
ion. International standards such as IEEE 802.11 for wireless
local area networks (WLANs) [1] and IEEE 802.15.4 for
wireless personal area networks (WPANs) [2] have enabled nu-
merous applications within wireless sensor networks (WSNs).
However, both standards are not widely adopted by industry
because of their lack in satisfying industrial requirements, for
example, deterministic delay and high reliability [3], [4].
The International Society of Automation (ISA) has released
a wireless standard for process control and related applications
in industrial automation, ISA100.11a, which is based on hybrid
channel access TDMA and CSMA/CA [5]. ISA100.11a read-
opts the CSMA/CA mechanism of the original IEEE 802.15.4
Manuscript received November 26, 2012; Accepted for publication January
28, 2014.
Copyright (c) 2009 IEEE. Personal use of this material is permitted.
However, permission to use this material for any other purposes must be
obtained from the IEEE by sending a request to pubs-permissions@ieee.org.
combined with the TDMA-MAC scheme for contention and
deterministic transmission purposes, respectively [6].
In the latest release of the ISA100.11a specification,
ISA100.11a operates in the 2.4-GHz industrial scientific and
medical (ISM) unlicensed band, which is commonly used
for low cost radio devices such as in IEEE 802.11b/g/n
(WLAN) [1], IEEE 802.15.4 [2], and IEEE 802.15.1 (Blue-
tooth) [7]. Regardless of the possibility that future versions
of this standard will define an alternate layer, it is very likely
that the ISA100.11a industrial wireless network is collocated
with another wireless technology within the communication
range of each other in an industrial plant, particularly with the
ubiquitous IEEE 802.11.
Some of the related research studies focused on the co-
existence problem between IEEE 802.15.4 and IEEE 802.11.
In [8], the performance of IEEE 802.15.4 under interference
from WLAN was obtained via experiments. In [9], the problem
of coexistence between Wi-Fi networks and ZigBee based
WSNs in indoor environments is studied using experimental
measurements and simulations. The effects of interference
from IEEE 802.11, Bluetooth, and microwave ovens on the
reliability of wireless sensor links conforming to the IEEE
802.15.4 standard is measured in [10]. A survey on the
coexistence between IEEE 802.11 and IEEE 802.15.4-based
networks and a discussion of some of the open research
issues and development are found in [11]. However, all of
the previous works have considered only the general form of
IEEE 802.15.4, which is based on the CSMA/CA method,
under single-channel operation. In [12], the performance of
ISA100.11a was evaluated under WLAN interference using
experimental measurements. However, to the best of the
knowledge of the authors, the performance of ISA100.11a
in the presence of IEEE 802.11 has never been reported
analytically in the literature.
In this work, the impact of IEEE 802.11 interference,
particularly IEEE 802.11b, on ISA100.11a is evaluated us-
ing the PER and average end-to-end delay as performance
measures. The PER of ISA100.11a under interference from
IEEE 802.11b is analyzed using the bit error probability and
collision time. The bit error probability is obtained from the
signal-to-interference-and-noise-ratio (SINR) and the collision
time is defined as the time duration in which an ISA100.11a
packet experiences interference from the IEEE 802.11b pack-
ets. Moreover, a theoretical analysis of the average end-to-end
delay characteristics of ISA100.11a under interference from
IEEE 802.11b using the resulting PER is proposed. The end-

1551-3203 (c) 2013 IEEE. Personal use is permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission. See
http://www.ieee.org/publications_standards/publications/rights/index.html for more information.
This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI
10.1109/TII.2014.2307016, IEEE Transactions on Industrial Informatics
to-end delay is defined as the total time from the arrival of a
packet at the transmitter to the time when an ACK is received
by the sender node.
The remainder of this paper is organized as follows. Sec-
tion II briefly discusses an overview of the ISA100.11a indus-
trial wireless network. Section III details the definition and
system model used in this paper. In Section IV, the PER and
average end-to-end delay of ISA100.11a are evaluated using
the proposed interference model. Section V provides a compar-
ison between the analytical and simulation results, followed by
further discussion on simulation results in Section VI. Finally,
the conclusions are presented in Section VII.
II. OVERVIEW OF ISA100.11 A
A. General Overview
The ISA100.11a protocol is intended for reliable and secure
wireless operation for non-critical monitoring, alerting, su-
pervisory control, open-loop control, and closed-loop control
applications [3], [5], [13]. The components of an ISA100.11a
network consist of a security manager, a system manager,
a gateway, backbone routers, and field devices, as depicted
in Fig. 1. The system manager has a specialized function
that monitors the entire network and is in charge of the
system management, device management, and communication
configuration (resource and scheduling) as well as time-related
services. When two devices require communication, a con-
tract agreed upon by the system Manager and both devices
is used for network resource allocation and configuration.
The security manager provides security services, while the
gateway provides an interface between the ISA100.11a field
network and the plant network. The backbone router enables
external networks to carry an ISA100.11a-compliant packet by
encapsulating the PDUs for transport, allowing the ISA100.11a
network to use other networks.
Fig. 1: ISA100.11a mesh network
ISA100.11a supports star, mesh, and combinations of both
topologies. The MAC of ISA100.11a implements the time
division multiple access (TDMA) mechanism which allows
a device to access the RF medium without having to wait for
other devices [14]. The shared timeslot or CSMA/CA mode
is supported in ISA100.11a for contention transmission pur-
poses and commonly used for retries, join requests, exception
reporting, and burst traffic. The timing axis of each device is
divided into configurable constant timeslot durations, varying
1551-3203 (c) 2013 IEEE. Personal use is permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission. See
http://www.ieee.org/publications_standards/publications/rights/index.html for more information.
2
from 10 ms to 12 ms. A group of timeslots repeating on a
cyclic schedule forms a superframe. The superframe length
is configurable and can vary from one device to another.
In general, longer-period superframes result in higher data
latency and lower bandwidth; however, they result in reduced
energy consumption and less concentrated allocation of digital
bandwidth [5]. The packet inter-arrival time in ISA100.11a is
determined by the superframe structure, that is, the timeslot
length.
Fig. 2: Three channel hopping schemes of ISA100.11a: slotted
hopping, slow hopping, and hybrid hopping.
The ISA100.11a standard defines three types of channel
hopping operations, which are slotted hopping, slow hopping,
and hybrid hopping, as depicted in Fig. 2. Each timeslot in
slotted hopping uses a different channel in a hopping pattern
to accommodate one transaction, while in slow hopping, one
channel occupies a group of successive timeslots with a dura-
tion of 100–400 ms designated by the system manager. Hybrid
hopping uses combinations of the slotted hopping and slow
hopping superframes, where slotted hopping accommodates
the periodic data and slow hopping is available on a contention
basis for sporadic data such as alarms and retries.
B. Wireless Network Coexistence Strategy in ISA100.11a
The physical layer of the ISA100.11a device is constructed
on the basis of the IEEE 802.15.4 PHY standard, which uses
direct sequence spectrum spreading and O-QPSK modula-
tion [2]. ISA100.11a operates only in the 2.4-GHz band using
IEEE 802.15.4 channels 11–25 with a maximum data rate of
250 kbps. Channel 26 is defined as optional in ISA100.11a.
All the channels are spaced 5 MHz apart and have a bandwidth
of 2 MHz.
The IEEE 802.11b WLAN is intended for medium-range
communication (100 m), while IEEE 802.15.4 is specified for
personal area networks (PANs) and low-range communication.
Consequently, the transmission power of the WLAN is higher
than that of IEEE 802.15.4. From the view point of IEEE
802.15.4, the coexistence of the WLAN within its communica-
tion range results in high interference. Moreover, when several
WLAN nodes transmit packets simultaneously, they contend
with each other for channel access and collision occurs, which
is another powerful interference for IEEE 802.15.4 [15]. Fig. 3
illustrates the relationship between the three commonly used
This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI
10.1109/TII.2014.2307016, IEEE Transactions on Industrial Informatics
3

IEEE 802.11 channels and the sixteen IEEE 802.15.4 channels

in the 2.4-GHz band.

Fig. 3: Overlapping channels in IEEE 802.11 and IEEE

802.15.4.

ISA100.11a employs three methods to limit the use of

undesirable radio channels and to reduce the impact of interfer-
ence from other wireless networks: clear channel assessment
(CCA), spectrum management, and adaptive channel hopping.
CCA is performed by a device that is about to initiate
transmission to determine whether the channel is busy or not.
Transmission is canceled when a channel is determined as Fig. 4: Model setup: There is an ISA100.11a gateway at the
busy prior to transmission. Spectrum management limits the origin, an ISA100.11a node is at fixed distance dI from the
data link layer operation to a subset of channels. As shown in gateway, and multiple IEEE 802.11b WLAN nodes at identical
Fig. 3, channels 15, 20, and 25 in IEEE 802.15.4 do not sub- distance dW interfere with ISA100.11a transmission.
stantially overlap with any of the three common IEEE 802.11
channels. For this reason, IEEE 802.15.4 channels 15, 20, and
analytical simplicity, it is assumed that there is at least one
25 can reasonably be designated as slow hopping channels.
packet to transmit at each ISA100.11a timeslot and the packet
Limiting slow hopping operation to channels 15, 20, and 25
arrives at the transmitter according to a Poison process with
is an example of spectrum management. Adaptive channel
rate λP .
hopping is a technique whereby a device can autonomously
A simplified indoor propagation model is assumed for all
treat the transmit links on problematic channels as idle, thus
transmissions in this scenario [17], which consists of two parts:
reducing unnecessary interference and wasted energy on the
(1) line-of-sight propagation for the first dL m, and (2) a
channels with a history of poor connectivity.
propagation exponent of 3.3 for a distance over dL . The path
loss is expressed as
III. N OTATION , D EFINITIONS , AND S YSTEM M ODEL
In this work, the ISA100.11a and WLAN nodes are assumed { ( 4πd )
20 log , d ≤ dL ( )
to be hidden from each other. In the case where both standards LP ( 4πd
λ
) (1)
are set to use the carrier sense method to determine the channel 20 log λ + 10n log ddL , d > dL ,
L

state, both networks could be considered to be hidden from

each other without loss of generality [15].
The scenario setup in Fig. 4, where a WLAN network
with multiple WLAN sources interferes with the ISA100.11a
network, is adopted for analytical tractability. The ISA100.11a
network consists of one ISA100.11a gateway and one
ISA100.11a node, where the ISA100.11a node transmits a
data packet to the gateway which in turn responds with an
ACK packet. All WLAN nodes transmit data packets to a
randomly selected WLAN node as the destination. From the
viewpoint of the channels, this scenario can be viewed as
multiple ISA100.11a nodes connected to the gateway in a
star topology with perfect scheduling, resulting in the same
PER for both scenarios. It is assumed that only the non
overlapping channels (i.e., channel 1, 6, and 11) are used in the
IEEE 802.11b networks. The distance between the ISA100.11a
gateway and the WLAN nodes dW is assumed to be identical.
Slotted hopping is used in our model because it introduces
frequency diversity to effectively combat interference [16]. For
where d is the distance between the transmitter and the
receiver; dL is the length of the line-of-sight(LOS), which is
set to 8 m; and n is the path loss exponent.
IV. PACKET E RROR R ATE A NALYSIS OF ISA100.11A
UNDER IEEE 802.11B I NTERFERENCE
A. Bit Error Probability Evaluation
For analytical simplicity, the in-band interference power of
IEEE 802.11b is assumed as additive white Gaussian noise
(AWGN) for ISA100.11a because the bandwidth of IEEE
802.11b is larger than that of ISA100.11a. Fig. 5 illustrates the
power spectral density of the DSSS signal in IEEE 802.11b.
The offset between the center frequencies of the WLAN and
the ISA100.11a determines the in-band interference power
because the transmission power of IEEE 802.11b is concen-
trated around the center frequency. Table I summarizes the
relationship between the center frequency offset and the power
spectral density ratio of the IEEE 802.11b signal. PTWx and

1551-3203 (c) 2013 IEEE. Personal use is permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission. See
http://www.ieee.org/publications_standards/publications/rights/index.html for more information.
This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI
10.1109/TII.2014.2307016, IEEE Transactions on Industrial Informatics
4

TABLE I: In-band interference power ratios. on channel j, Pj is the probability that the ISA100.11a net-
work transmits on channel j, and C is a group of ISA100.11a
Frequency Offset (MHz) Ratio channels that collides with the active WLAN channels (see
0 0.18995
1 0.18417 Fig. 3). SIN RiW and SIN RiI are the SINRs of ISA100.11a.
2 0.16946 The superscript W denotes the WLAN and ISA100.11a inter-
3 0.14761 ferers, while superscript I denotes the ISA100.11a interferer
4 0.12085
5 0.092248 only. The SINR value is given by
6 0.064803  
7 0.040997
8 0.022485  
 PRx,ISA 
9 0.009931 SIN RiW = 10log10  +P G,
10 0.003047  ∑
k ∑
l 
others 0 PN o + PIW (i) + PII (i)
i=1 i=1
  (5)

T xW  
r denote the WLAN transmission power and the ratio  PRx,ISA 
SIN RiI = 10log10   + P G, (6)
of the WLAN power, which interferes with the ISA100.11a  ∑l
I

transmission; further, the WLAN interferer power is calculated PN o + PI (i)
i=1
as
where PRx,ISA is the ISA100.11a received power; PN o is the
PIW = PTWx T xW
r Lp , (2) industrial background noise power; k and l are the number
of active WLAN and ISA100.11a interferers, respectively; PII
where ∑ is the interference power from the other ISA100.11a nodes;
T xW
r = Rj (f o), (3) γ ≃ 0.85 [18]; and the processing gain (PG) is 9 dB.
B

Rj (f o) is the in-band power ratio of the WLAN channel that
collides with ISA100.11a, as summarized in Table I; and B is
the overlapped band between ISA100.11a and the WLAN.
B. Collision Time Evaluation
ISA100.11a is a low-rate wireless network with a MAC
packet length of up to 96 bytes and a maximum data rate
of 250kbit/s. On the other hand, IEEE 802.11b supports a
maximum MAC packet length and a data rate of 1500 bytes
and 11 Mbit/s, respectively. Thus, the maximum transmission
time of the WLAN is shorter than that of ISA100.11a. The
interference from IEEE 802.11b on ISA100.11a is modeled
as shown in Fig. 6. TX , LX , and TACK,X denote the interar-
rival time, packet duration, and duration of the ACK packet,
respectively, where the subscript X denotes either ISA100.11a
or IEEE 802.11b. Table II lists the other parameters shown in
Fig. 6.

Fig. 5: Power Spectral Density of the IEEE 802.11b.

After obtaining the expression for the WLAN interferer

power, the bit error probability of ISA100.11a experiencing
interference from multiple WLAN sources, Pb , is determined
by applying the total probability theorem as Fig. 6: Collision model between ISA100.11a and IEEE
802.11b.
∑I
N
1 ∑I
N
Pb = Pb|j Pj = NI
Pb|j IEEE 802.11b is assumed to be under saturated conditions,
[
j=1
(√
j=1
) (√ )] (4)
∑ ∑ which implies that each node always has a packet to transmit.
1
= NI
Q 2γSIN RiW + Q 2γSIN RiI , The interference of ISA100.11a to IEEE 802.11b is assumed
j∈C j∈C
to be ignored because of large bandwidth and high transmis-
where NI is the number of ISA100.11a channels, Pb|j is the bit sion power of WLAN compared to ISA100.11a [19]. With
error probability conditioned to ISA100.11a network transmits reference to [20], the probability that a WLAN node transmits

1551-3203 (c) 2013 IEEE. Personal use is permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission. See
http://www.ieee.org/publications_standards/publications/rights/index.html for more information.
This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI
10.1109/TII.2014.2307016, IEEE Transactions on Industrial Informatics
5

TABLE II: Parameters for the collision time model. PDW

and PAW denote the probabilities that an ISA100.11a
packet is successfully received under interference from IEEE
Parameter Definition Value 802.11b data and ACK packets, respectively. The closed-form
TI interarrival time between two varies W
ISA100.11a TDMA packets expressions for PD and PAW are obtained from the values of
D A
LI duration of an ISA100.11a packet 4256 µs TC (OW ) and TC (OW ) in (12), where b is the bit duration of
TACK,I duration of an ISA100.11a 352 µs W
the ISA100.11a packet and Pbn is the bit error probability of
ACK packet
tT A turnaround time 932 µs ISA100.11a experiencing interference from n WLAN nodes.
W
TW interarrival time between two varies Further, from PD and PAW , the PER of the ISA100.11a data
WLAN data packets packet, PE (n), is obtained as
LW duration of a WLAN data packet 1303 µs
tSIF S short IFS of WLAN 10 µs ∫ LI −TW
tDIF S DCF IFS of WLAN 50 µs (1 − PD W W
PA )dOW
PE (n) = OW =0 , (11)
TACK,W duration of a WLAN ACK packet 304 µs LI − TW
T OACK ACK timeout of WLAN TACK,W + tSIF S
+ tslot ∑
n
ta (n) average access time of WLAN varying where PCn = pkc , and PSn + PCn = 1.
δW unit slot time of WLAN 20 µs k=2

C. Average End-to-End Delay

in a randomly selected slot time is The end-to-end delay for ISA100.11a is defined as the
2(1 − 2p) total time from packet arrival at the transmitter until the
τ= m , (7) corresponding ACK is received, that is, the total waiting time
(1 − 2p)(Wmin + 1) + (pWmin (1 − (2p) ))
in queue and in transmission. An infinite queue length is
which depends on the conditional collision probability assumed. A packet cannot be transmitted immediately when
p = 1−(1−τ )n−1 . Wmin is the minimum contention window other packets are waiting in the queue when the given packet
size and m is the maximum backoff stage in IEEE 802.11b. arrives at the transmitter. Moreover, a packet transmitted in a
The probability that there is at least one transmission in timeslot could be lost or rejected at the receiver because of
the selected WLAN timeslot is Ptr = 1 − (1 − τ )n . Further, interference, in which case the transmitter transmits the given
the probability that a WLAN packet transmission is successful, packet in its subsequent dedicated timeslots until it is received
PSn , or experiences collision, PCn , in the WLAN with n source successfully by the receiver, which is indicated by ACK packet
nodes is expressed as reception, as illustrated in Fig. 7.
PSn = nτ (1 − τ )n−1 /Ptr ,
(8)
PCn = 1 − PSn .
Upon reception of the ACK packet, all WLAN nodes wait
for tDIF S to access the channel. tW
slot denotes the slot time of
the WLAN, further, the average WLAN access time from the
viewpoint of the channel, which is the time elapsed from the
moment at the end of tDIF S or the ACK timeout to the next
WLAN packet transmission, is expressed as

a = tslot (1 − τ ) /1 − (1 − τ ) .
tW W n n
(9)
Thus, the packet inter-arrival time of the WLAN with multiple
sources is expressed as
TW (n) = PSn (LW + tSIF S + TACK,W + tDIF S + tW a (n))
+PCn (LW + T OACK + tW a (n)). Fig. 7: Transmission delay for ISA100.11a under interference.
(10)
The time offset between ISA100.11a and the WLAN, It is observed from the previous analysis that, there is the
OW , is assumed to be uniformly distributed over probability that a packet is rejected at the receiver PE . Each
[0, LI –TW ], i.e., there is at least one WLAN packet timeslot in slotted hopping is intended to accommodate one
that collides with an ISA100.11a packet. Consequently, the transaction including a DPDU and its ACK. Therefore, it
collisions with the WLAN data packet are categorized into follows that the time interval between the start of the first
three cases as shown in Fig. 8. Analysis of the collision transmission of a given packet and the end of the corre-
cases ⌊in Fig. 8 ⌋is discussed further in the Appendix. Defining sponding ACK reception is ktd +ltm +ts with a probability
K = LIT−O W
W
as the number of WLAN packets that fully of PEk (1 − PE ), where k is the number of retransmissions
collide with an ISA100.11a packet, the collision time for attempted; td is the timeslot duration; l = ⌊(k + m)/Sp ⌋; m
multiple WLAN nodes is obtained as shown in Appendix, and tm are, respectively, the number of slots and the time
where TCD (OW ) and TCA (OW ) are the collision time durations duration reserved for network management; Sp is the number
of the WLAN data and ACK packet, respectively. of slots in one superframe; and ts is the time required for

1551-3203 (c) 2013 IEEE. Personal use is permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission. See
http://www.ieee.org/publications_standards/publications/rights/index.html for more information.
This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI
10.1109/TII.2014.2307016, IEEE Transactions on Industrial Informatics
6

(a) KTW + LW ≤ LI − OW < (K + 1)TW (b) KTW < LI − OW < KTW + LW (c) LI − OW = KTW

Fig. 8: Collision cases between ISA100.11a and IEEE 802.11b packets.

 
D (O
 
 ⌈ ⌉ Tc,i W)

∏
NW
 D (O
Tc,i W)
∑
n


 b 
 
PSn (1 − pW pkc (1 − pW
W b
PD = b1 ) + bk )
i=1 
 k=2 

 
(12)
A (O
Tc,i
 W)
∏W
M 
 b 

PAW = PSn (1−pW
b1 )
j=1

successful transmission. ts is expressed as is expressed as

ts = LI + tT A + TACK,I .
In ISA100.11a, the maximum number of retransmissions is
limited by the packet lifetime, M axLif eT ime. The maxi-
mum lifetime of a packet varies from 2 s to 480 s, with a
recommended value of 30 s. Thus, the maximum number of
retransmissions is expressed as
M = (tmax /td ) − (⌊tmax /Sp ⌋)m,
where tmax is M axLif eT ime. With a typical timeslot du-
ration of 10 ms, the maximum number of retransmissions is
assumed to be infinite, and no packets are dropped because
M axLif eT ime is exceeded. Further, the average packet
transmission delay of ISA100.11a is expressed as
∑
M
TR = (ktd + ltm + ts )PEk (1 − PE ).
k=0
It can be noted that this delay model can be generalized
easily by modifying the term ktd + ltm , which denotes the
time spent for failure transmission. In the case where there
are multiple ISA100.11a nodes connected in a star topology,
where each node has one dedicated slot at each superframe,
the aforementioned term is changed to kSp .
Once the average transmission delay is known, the average
queuing delay expression, TQ, is required to be derived in
order to obtain the average end-to-end delay. From [21], the
P ollaczek−Khinchin formula is used to determine the value
of the queuing delay as
λP TR2
TQ = , (16)
2(1 − ρ)
where ρ = λP TR , λP is the Poisson process arrival rate,
and TR2 is the second moment of transmission time, which
(13) ∑
M
2
TR2 = (ktd + ltm + ts ) PEk (1 − PE ). (17)
k=0
After obtaining the expressions for both TR and TQ , the
average end-to-end delay is easily calculated as
Tend = TR + TQ . (18)
(14)
V. S IMULATION
In this section, the PER of ISA100.11a under interference
from IEEE 802.11b is analyzed using the OPNET modeler.
The simulation is performed for the network scenario in
Fig. 4. The data rates for ISA100.11a and IEEE 802.11b
are set to 250 kbps and 11Mbps, respectively. The payload
sizes for ISA100.11a and IEEE 802.11b are 96 and 1500
(15)
bytes, respectively, while the transmission powers are set to
1 mW and 30 mW, respectively. During the simulation, the
ISA100.11a superframe length is always maintained 25 slots,
with 24 dedicated slots and 1 slot for network management,
that is, beacon transmission. The duration of each time slot
is set to 10 ms such that the superframe duty is re-aligned
to 250 ms. The ISA100.11a gateway node is set to not
generate any packet except the beacon and ACK packets, while
the ISA100.11a node generates data with λP =10ms. In all
the scenarios presented in this work, the distance between
the ISA100.11a gateway and the ISA100.11a node dI is set
to 3 m.
The PER of the ISA100.11a packet with different values of
distance between ISA100.11a and IEEE 802.11b and different
numbers of WLAN active channels are shown in Fig. 9. It is
shown that as the distance increases, the PER of ISA100.11a
decreases because the WLAN interference power is lower
because of the path loss as the WLAN signal propagates

1551-3203 (c) 2013 IEEE. Personal use is permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission. See
http://www.ieee.org/publications_standards/publications/rights/index.html for more information.
This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI
10.1109/TII.2014.2307016, IEEE Transactions on Industrial Informatics
Fig. 9: PER for ISA100.11a under interference from IEEE
802.11b with different values of dW and CW .
through a wireless medium. It is also shown that the presence
of more active WLAN channels leads to higher interference.
It is evident from the simulation results that, even though
the value of dW is the same that of dI , the PER value is
not 1, which implies that there are some packets that can still
be received by the ISA100.11a gateway. The reason for this
is the slotted hopping employed in the ISA100.11a network.
Even when the quality of some of the channels has degraded
owing to high interference from the WLAN nodes, packets can
still be received safely with slotted hopping when the radio
transmission link selects other channels.
Fig. 10: PER of ISA100.11a versus the number of WLAN
nodes with different values of dW .
The PER of ISA100.11a under interference from IEEE
802.11b is shown in Fig. 10 when the number of WLAN
nodes varies from 2 to 20, and dW values range from 3 to
15 m. Fig. 10 shows that a greater number of nodes leads
to a greater PER value, which confirms the fact that the
presence of more WLAN nodes leads to higher interference.
It is observed that, as the number of WLAN nodes increases,
the PER for ISA100.11a increases because contention among
1551-3203 (c) 2013 IEEE. Personal use is permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission. See
http://www.ieee.org/publications_standards/publications/rights/index.html for more information.
7
multiple WLAN nodes leads to collision, which is a more
powerful interference source for ISA100.11a.
The results illustrated in Fig. 11 are obtained for different
values of WLAN transmission power and dW , in which the
values of dW range from 2 to 20 m, and PTWx ranges from
10 to 100 mW. The number of interfering WLAN nodes is
maintained at five nodes. As the transmission power of the
WLAN nodes increases, the PER of ISA100.11a increases
because of the higher collective interference from the WLAN
nodes. However, it is observed that the PER of ISA100.11a
never reaches one even when the transmission power of the
WLAN is set to 100 mW. The reason for this is that the
aforementioned phenomenon is similar to the results in Fig. 9,
which result from the use of slotted hopping.
Fig. 11: PER of ISA100.11a under IEEE 802.11b interference
with different values of dW and PTWx .
By defining the safe distance as the minimum distance
between the ISA100.11a network and the WLAN sources such
that ISA100.11a can operate without experiencing significant
interference from the WLAN sources and selecting the PER
values of 10−5 as the minimum performance that can be
accepted, it can be deduced from this result that the distance
between the ISA100.11a and IEEE 802.11b nodes must be
greater than 18 m when there are five IEEE 802.11b WLAN
nodes operating with a transmission power of 30 mW.
Fig. 12 shows the average end-to-end delay of ISA100.11a
under interference from IEEE 802.11b (Tend ) with varying
dW values. The value of WLAN PTWx is maintained constant
at 30 mW. It is found that a higher value for dW results in
a lower value for Tend , which agrees with the decrease in
the PER when dW increases. A higher number of WLAN
nodes results in greater delay as expected. As dW increases,
Tend converges to tmin because the WLAN interference is
not detected by the ISA100.11a node at a relatively large
distance, where tmin is the time required for transmitting a
packet without retransmission.
These results emphasize the capability of the ISA100.11a
standard to meet the industrial requirements of determinis-
tic delay and reliable transmission. ISA100.11a exhibits the
deterministic property of TDMA-based MAC and is able to
provide an average end-to-end delay below 100 ms under
interference, which is known to be sufficient for process
This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI
10.1109/TII.2014.2307016, IEEE Transactions on Industrial Informatics
8

increase in the bit error probability, and, as a consequence,

Fig. 12: Average delay for ISA100.11a under IEEE 802.11b
interference with difference values of dW and the number of
WLAN nodes
the PER increases. The in-band interference power of the
WLAN is considered as AWGN. The average end-to-end delay
is obtained from the PER by analyzing the waiting time in
the buffer and transmission. The proposed analytical model is
validated through simulations.
The analysis described in this work is based on the re-
quirements of process control and monitoring systems, that
is, reliable transmission and bounded time delay. The simu-
lation results are presented for several different interference
conditions. These results imply both the capability of the
ISA100.11a standard to provide a deterministic delay and a
minimum distance between ISA100.11a and IEEE 802.11b
such that the ISA100.11a network can operate safely. The PER
and timing analysis presented in this work should be useful in
the design and implementation this new promising standard in
a ubiquitous WLAN network environment.
A PPENDIX

control and monitoring in industry [22]. The transmission Generally, the collision possibility with WLAN data packets
reliability of ISA100.11a can be observed from its PER value, is categorized into two cases:
which never reaches the value of 1. Thus, it can be inferred • All transmitted WLAN packets fully collide with the
that with retransmission, a packet is guaranteed to be received ISA100.11a packet
safely at the destination with an average delay of less than • One WLAN packet partly collides while the rest fully
100 ms when slotted hopping is used. collide with the ISA100.11a packet
Using the value of LI − OW , which denotes the available
VI. F URTHER D ISCUSSION time for collision, the former is further categorized into the
Beside those used in the simulation presented, there are two cases in Figs. 8a and 8c, while the latter is illustrated
more parameters to play with in order to avoid significant in Fig. 8b. Similarly, collision with the WLAN ACK packet
performance degradation due to interference when two net- can be analyzed using the same model. Thus, the collision
works have to coexist together, e.g., packet length, packet time with the WLAN packet is obtained as (19), where DW
generation rate, and channel selection. Those parameters are = LW +tSIF S +TACK,W .
also considered in the proposed model and the optimum
performance of ISA100.11a under WLAN interference can be 

 (K + 1)LW ,
determined when they are modified. In general, longer packets 


 for KTW + LW ≤ LI − OW ,
and higher packet generation rates of the interfered network 


 L I − OW < (K + 1)TW ,
are more prone to packet loss, while bad channel selection 


 and NW = 1, 2, 3,
may lead to harmful interference to both coexisting networks. 

 KLW + (LI − OW − KTW ),
It should also be noted that interference between two
TCD = for KTW < LI − OW ,
networks is highly variable and depends on a number of 


 L I − OW < KTW + LW
factors, primarily geometry of the nodes. It is always possible 


 and NW = 2, 3, 4,
to construct scenarios that will give poor performance (or 


 KL W ,
unrealistically excellent performance) due to the nature of 


 for LI − OW = KTW
radio-wave propagation and implementation limitations of 
 and NW = 2, 3,
receiver designs [23].

 (K + 1)TACK,W ,



 for KT W + DW ≤ LI − OW ,
VII. C ONCLUSION 


 L I − O W < (K + 1)TW ,


This paper analyzes the performance of the ISA100.11a 
 and N W = 1, 2, 3,


industrial wireless network under interference from IEEE  KTACK,W + (LI − OW − KTW − LW − tSIF S ),
802.11b based on MAC and PHY layer models for both TCA = for KTW + LW + tSIF S ≤ LI − OW ,


systems. The network performance is presented in the form  LI − OW < KTW + DW ,



of the PER and average end-to-end delay. The PER is ob-  and NW = 2, 3, 4,



tained from the collision time, which is defined as the time  KTACK,W ,



duration in which the desired packet experiences interference,  for LI − OW = KTW + LW + tSIF S ,

and the bit error probability. During the collision time, the 
and NW = 2, 3.
SINR decreases owing to interference, which results in an (19)

1551-3203 (c) 2013 IEEE. Personal use is permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission. See
http://www.ieee.org/publications_standards/publications/rights/index.html for more information.
This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI
10.1109/TII.2014.2307016, IEEE Transactions on Industrial Informatics
9

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT [19] K.-J. Myoung, S.-Y. Shin, H.-S. Park, and W.-H. Kwon, “IEEE 802.11b
Performance Analysis in the Presence of IEEE 802.15.4 Interference,”
This research was supported by Basic Science Research Communications, IEICE Transactions on, vol. E90-B, no. 1, pp. 176–
Program through the National Research Foundation of Korea 179, 2007.
[20] I. Tinnirello, G. Bianchi, and Y. Xiao, “Refinements on IEEE 802.11
(NRF) funded by the Ministry of Science, ICT & Future Distributed Coordination Function Modeling Approaches,” Vehicular
Planning(2012R1A1A1009442). Technology, IEEE Transactions on, vol. 59, no. 3, pp. 1055–1067, 2010.
[21] D. Bertsekas and R. Gallager, Data networks (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle
River, NJ, USA: Prentice-Hall, Inc, 1992.
R EFERENCES [22] T. H. Kim, J. Y. Ha, and S. Choi, “Improving Spectral and Temporal Ef-
ficiency of Collocated IEEE 802.15.4 LR-WPANs,” Mobile Computing,
[1] “IEEE Standard for Information technology–Telecommunications and IEEE Transactions on, vol. 8, no. 12, pp. 1596–1609, 2009.
information exchange between systems Local and metropolitan area [23] J. Lansford, A. Stephens, and R. Nevo, “Wi-fi (802.11b) and bluetooth:
networks–Specific requirements Part 11: Wireless LAN Medium Access enabling coexistence,” Network, IEEE, vol. 15, no. 5, pp. 20–27, 2001.
Control (MAC) and Physical Layer (PHY) Specifications,” IEEE Std
802.11-2012 (Revision of IEEE Std 802.11-2007), pp. 1–2793, 2012.
[2] “IEEE Standard for Information technology– Local and metropolitan
area networks– Specific requirements– Part 15.4: Wireless Medium
Access Control (MAC) and Physical Layer (PHY) Specifications for
Low Rate Wireless Personal Area Networks (WPANs),” IEEE Std
802.15.4-2006 (Revision of IEEE Std 802.15.4-2003), pp. 1–320, 2006.
[3] S. Petersen and S. Carlsen, “WirelessHART Versus ISA100.11a: The
Format War Hits the Factory Floor,” Industrial Electronics Magazine,
IEEE, vol. 5, no. 4, pp. 23–34, 2011.
[4] T. Lennvall, S. Svensson, and F. Hekland, “A comparison of Wire-
lessHART and ZigBee for industrial applications,” in Factory Commu-
nication Systems, 2008. WFCS 2008. IEEE International Workshop on,
pp. 85–88, 2008. Fadillah Purnama Rezha received his bachelor’s
degree in Electrical Engineering from Bandung In-
[5] “Wireless systems for industrial automation: Process control and related
stitute of Technology, Indonesia, in 2010. He worked
applications,” ISA100.11a Working Group, pp. 1–817, 2009.
as a researcher at Wireless and Embedded Network-
[6] N. Q. Dinh, S.-W. Kim, and D.-S. Kim, “Performance evaluation of
ing System Lab., while attending graduate school
priority CSMA-CA mechanism on ISA100.11a wireless network,” in
at Kumoh National Institute of Technology, Gumi,
Computer Sciences and Convergence Information Technology (ICCIT),
Korea, where he received his Master of Engineering
2010 5th International Conference on, pp. 991–996, 2010.
degree. His main research interests are wireless
[7] “IEEE Standard for Information Technology - Telecommunications and
LAN, embedded networks, industrial networks, and
Information Exchange Between Systems - Local and Metropolitan Area
cognitive radio networks.
Networks - Specific Requirements. - Part 15.1: Wireless Medium Access
Control (MAC) and Physical Layer (PHY) Specifications for Wireless
Personal Area Networks (WPANs),” IEEE Std 802.15.1-2005 (Revision
of IEEE Std 802.15.1-2002), pp. 1–580, 2005.
[8] N. LaSorte, S. Rajab, and H. Refai, “Experimental assessment of
wireless coexistence for 802.15.4 in the presence of 802.11g/n,” in Elec-
tromagnetic Compatibility (EMC), 2012 IEEE International Symposium
on, pp. 473–479, Aug 2012.
[9] M. Rihan, M. El-Khamy, and M. El-Sharkawy, “On zigbee coexistence
in the ism band: Measurements and simulations,” in Wireless Communi-
cations in Unusual and Confined Areas (ICWCUCA), 2012 International
Conference on, pp. 1–6, Aug 2012.
[10] W. Guo, W. Healy, and M. Zhou, “Impacts of 2.4-ghz ism band
interference on ieee 802.15.4 wireless sensor network reliability in Soo Young Shin was born in 1975. He received
buildings,” Instrumentation and Measurement, IEEE Transactions on, his B.S., M.S., and Ph. D degrees in Electrical
vol. 61, pp. 2533–2544, Sept 2012. Engineering and Computer Science from Seoul Na-
[11] D. Yang, Y. Xu, and M. Gidlund, “Wireless coexistence between IEEE tional University, Korea in 1999, 2001, and 2006,
802.11-and IEEE 802.15. 4-based networks: A survey,” International respectively. He was a visiting scholar in FUNLab
Journal of Distributed Sensor Networks, vol. 2011, 2011. at University of Washington, US, from July 2006
[12] Y. Serizawa, T. Yano, M. Miyazaki, K. Mizugaki, R. Fujiwara, and to June 2007. After 3 years working in WiMAX
M. Kokubo, “Verification of interference avoidance effect with adaptive design lab. of Samsung Electronics, he is now as-
channel diversity method based on isa100.11a standard,” in Radio and sistant professor in School of Electronics in Kumoh
Wireless Symposium (RWS), 2013 IEEE, pp. 361–363, Jan 2013. National Institute of Technology since September
2010. His research interests include next generation
[13] G. Wang, “Comparison and Evaluation of Industrial Wireless Network
mobile wireless broadband networks, cognitive radio networks, wireless LAN
Standards ISA100.11a and WirelessHART,” Master’s thesis, Chalmers
and PAN, wireless sensor networks, molecular network, industrial and military
University of Technology, 2011.
network and so on.
[14] B. Akyol, H. Kirkham, S. Clements, and M. Hadley, “A survey of
Wireless Communications for the Electric Power System,” Jan. 2010.
[15] S. Y. Shin, W. H. Kwon, and H. S. Park, “Interference analysis of
coexistent heterogenous wireless packet networks based on bit error rate
and collision time,” in Global Telecommunications Conference, 2007.
GLOBECOM’07. IEEE, pp. 4440–4444, IEEE, 2007.
[16] Z. Kostic, I. Maric, and X. Wang, “Fundamentals of dynamic frequency
hopping in cellular systems,” IEEE J.Sel. A. Commun., vol. 19, pp. 2254–
2266, Sept. 2006.
[17] N. Golmie, R. E. V. Dyck, and A. Soltanian, “Interference of Bluetooth
and IEEE 802.11: Simulation Modeling and Performance Evaluation,” in
in Proceedings of the Fourth ACM International Workshop on Modeling,,
pp. 11–18, 2001.
[18] T. Rappaport, The Wireless Communications. Prentice-Hall, Inc, 1996.

1551-3203 (c) 2013 IEEE. Personal use is permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission. See
http://www.ieee.org/publications_standards/publications/rights/index.html for more information.