This full text paper was peer-reviewed at the direction of IEEE Instrumentation and Measurement Society prior to the
acceptance and publication.
An Empirical Path Loss Model for Wireless
Sensor Network Deployment in a Dense Tree
Environment
Abdulaziz Alsayyari
Department of Computer Engineering
Shaqra University
Dawadmi, Ar Riyad, Saudi Arabia
alsayyari@su.edu.sa
Abstract—This paper presents a model for predicting radio
frequency (RF) propagation for Wireless Sensor Network (WSN)
deployment in a dense tree environment. To create the model,
data from a physical deployment are collected and an empirical
path loss prediction model is derived from the actual
measurements. Furthermore, the presented measurements and
empirical path loss model are compared with measurements and
models obtained from WSN deployments in other terrains, such
as one characterized by long-grass and another by sparse-tree
environments. The results from the comparison of these
different terrains show significant differences in path loss and
empirical models’ parameters. In addition, the proposed model
is compared with Free Space Path Loss (FSPL) and Two-Ray
models to demonstrate the inaccuracy of these theoretical models
in predicting path loss between wireless sensor nodes deployed in
dense tree environment.
Keywords—Wireless Sensor Networks; Radio Frequency
Propagation Models; Path Loss Models; Channel Modeling; RF
Propagation
I. INTRODUCTION
Since the beginning of the third millennium, Wireless
Sensor Network (WSN) technology has attracted a growing
attention from the research and commercial communities. It
became practical as a result of advancements in hardware and
wireless communication technologies. WSNs facilitate
monitoring of physical and environmental phenomena in areas
where human presence may be undesired or impossible. Such
networks typically consist of miniature, low-power, low-cost,
autonomous sensor nodes that communicate wirelessly over
short distances and that are commonly deployed across large
geographical areas.
Wireless sensor nodes disseminate packets and
communicate between one another in an ad hoc fashion. In ad
hoc networks, data packets are relayed between nodes to
extend the reach of the network. This allows the network to
cover large geographical areas, which otherwise would be
impossible with direct communication between the sender and
the receiver. Ad hoc networks are more likely to be used in
situations where preset communication infrastructure is not
978-1-5090-3202-0/17/$31.00 ©2017 IEEE
Ivica Kostanic, Carlos E. Otero, Abdallah Aldosary
Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering
Florida Institute of Technology
Melbourne, Florida, USA
kostanic@fit.edu, cotero@fit.edu, aaldosary2011@fit.edu
present, for example, in a battlefield environment or disastrous
areas.
Wireless sensor nodes may be deployed in a stochastic or
deterministic fashion. In the latter deployment approach, the
distance separating sensors are carefully planned based on
multiple factors including sensing functionality and
transmission range of sensor nodes, for example, see [1] and
[2]. On the other hand, in stochastic deployments, the
deployment process can be modeled as a random process
driven (in large part) by prediction of the signal propagation
[3], [4]. In both cases, accurate RF propagation models are of
great importance to facilitate planning and deployment of
sensor networks.
For practical applications, prediction of the WSN
deployment performance critically depends on one’s ability to
model the propagation of the radio signal between the
transmitter and receiver nodes, which depends fundamentally
on the type of terrain and the type of objects and foliage on
that terrain [5]. Therefore, a formal study is necessary for
understanding this behavior and for accurate characterization
of the terrain-dependent behavior of signal propagation. This
paper presents RF measurements and a model for prediction of
path loss in wireless sensor nodes that are deployed in a dense
tree environment.
II. RELATED WORK
Despite its importance, the subject of propagation
modeling in WSN research literature has been largely
neglected. Most of published work adopts one of the two
simplistic propagation models: free space propagation model
or two-ray propagation model, for example, see [6], [7], [8],
and [9]. Both of these models have been proven to be
inaccurate in WSN propagation environments [10], [11]. The
fundamental assumption behind the free space model is that
the transmitter and receiver have a line-of-sight (LOS)
communication with no obstructions or reflections of any
kind. In the case of WSN, the dominant presence of the
ground affects the propagation of the radio waves in a very
significant manner [12]. On the other hand, the two-ray model
takes into consideration two waves between the transmitter
and receiver: direct and ground-reflected waves. However, the
effects of the ground properties are not taken into the account.
As a result the attempt is very simplistic since the ground is
modeled as a flat perfectly conducting surface. These two
models have been shown to be inaccurate in predicting path
loss for wireless sensor nodes deployed in open fields with a
LOS communication between the transmitter and receiver
[10]. In fact, the signal attenuation in dense tree environments
is expected to be larger due to factors such as obstruction and
more intense multipath effects.
In [5], the authors present empirical path loss models based
on RF measurements of two WSN deployment environments:
long-grass and sparse-tree. The parameters of these two
models show significant differences between signal
propagation in these environments. However, the physical
effects associated with the models presented in [5] are
explained in more details in Section V. Nevertheless, [10]
presents RF measurement data collected through wireless
sensor nodes that were deployed in an artificial turf
environment, from which an empirical path loss model is
derived. The path loss exponent for the artificial turf came out
to be 2.75, which is slightly greater than the value obtained in
long-grass environment. In [13], however, RF measurements
and empirical path loss model are provided for WSN
deployment in sandy terrain environments. Surprisingly, the
path loss exponent of sandy terrain came out to be greater than
the value obtained in the sparse-tree environment. According
to the authors, the receiver signal strength (RSS) in sandy
terrain environments is significantly affected by the uneven
ground and the multiplicity of ground reflected waves.
Meanwhile, in the sparse-tree environment, the empirical
path loss model is an average of LOS and non-line-of-sight
(NLOS) propagation. This means that the path loss exponent
tends to be higher when trees and foliage are present, as will
be revealed throughout this paper. The authors continue their
work in characterizing signal propagation in different outdoor
WSN deployment environments in [14] by providing RF
measurements and empirical path loss model for WSN
deployment in concrete surface environments. The empirical
model’s parameters of concrete surface environment turned
out to be different than these associated with the previous
environments. Nevertheless, this work extends the previous
work in [5], [10], [13], and [14] by continuing the in-field
studies and examination of RF propagation in various WSN
potential outdoor deployment scenarios. Some research
papers, however, have investigated the propagation
characteristics of wireless sensor nodes deployed indoors,
such as in [15], which are outside the scope of this research.
III. EXPERIMENTAL SETUP:
RF propagation measurements were made at the Botanical
Garden at Florida Institute of Technology, see Fig. 1. The
Garden has a forest-like environment. The field is densely
filled with tall trees having thick trunks. In almost all RSS
values that were recorded, the transmitting and receiving
antenna pair had a NLOS communication.
Fig. 1. The Botanical Garden at Florida Tech
A. Wireless Sensor Nodes Deployment
Throughout the experiments, the intent was to place a
transmitting node at the center of the designated deployment
field and collect RSS readings at eight different distances (i.e.,
5, 10, 15, 20, 25, 30, 35, and 40 meters) and along sixteen
different 22.5 degrees separated radials. Therefore, an area of
80m x 80m is ideally needed to carry out each outdoor
deployment scenario experiment.
B. Operating Frequency and Antennas
The IEEE 802.15.4 standard operates in the 2.4 GHz ISM
along with other applications such IEEE 802.11 and Bluetooth
[15], sharing the same frequency band. As a result, the 2.4
GHz ISM band is quite noisy. For this reason, the experiments
described in this work used the 1925 MHz frequency. Before
conducting the test, the research team verified that no other
transmissions on the experimental frequency were actively
taking place. The antennas used in this experiment have
omnidirectional radiation patterns with heights of 20
centimeter above the ground.
C. Data Collection
In each experiment, RSS is collected at 128 measurement
points. For each of the points, 300 samples are collected,
providing sufficiently large data-set for approximating
important statistical properties of the signal, such as mean and
variability. Therefore, the RF measurement of each of the 128
measurement points is an average of 300 RSS samples. All RF
measurements were recorded in a laptop that is directly
connected to the receiving node.
IV. EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS
The RSS values collected in the dense tree environment
were converted into path loss values. The path loss is a
positive quantity that represents signal attenuation on the path
between the transmitter and the receiver antennas. In other
words, the path loss is a property of the environment and is
largely independent from the system parameters. For this
reason, path loss is usually preferred over RSS. Therefore, for
the rest of this paper, and for the sake of simplicity, the Path Loss Readings - Dense Tree
discussion and the focus are placed on the path loss and path
140
loss exponent rather than RSS. Generally, the relationship
between path loss, transmitted power, and RSS is given as: 130

𝐿𝑝 [dB] = 𝑃𝑡 [dBm] − 𝑃𝑟 [dBm] + 𝐺𝑡 [dB] + Gr [dB] (1) 120

Path Loss [dB]

where 𝐿𝑝 refers to the path loss, 𝑃𝑡 refers to the transmitted 110

power, 𝑃𝑟 refers to the received power, 𝐺𝑡 refers transmit

100
antenna gain, and 𝐺𝑟 refers to receive antenna gain. TABLE I
presents the path loss values of the 128 measurement points 90
and TABLE II summarizes its statistical properties.
80
TABLE I. Path loss results for dense tree environment
5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Distance [meters]
Radial
Degree 5m 10m 15m 20m 25m 30m 35m 40m Fig. 2. Path loss readings at the 16 radials.
No.
1 0 82 86 113 115 117 125 130 133
Average Path Loss - Dense Tree Environment
130
2 22.5 80 88 109 112 116 126 126 137
125
3 45 82 99 100 102 105 112 128 120
120
4 67.5 84 89 96 101 102 108 109 118
115

5 90 80 91 112 115 116 107 115 115 110

Path Loss [dB]

6 112.5 82 95 97 100 117 110 111 116 105

100
7 135 96 91 99 102 104 111 115 138
95
8 157.5 79 99 95 115 118 127 128 119
90 Average Path Loss Values
Linear Regression Line
9 180 90 91 97 100 114 117 113 116 85
y = 40.15*x + 52.14
10 202.5 81 97 109 117 118 115 110 115 80
0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2
Log ( Distance [m] )
11 225 82 108 111 102 103 109 126 118

12 247.5 85 86 94 100 104 123 116 117 Fig. 3. Average path loss and linear regression line and equation.

13 270 99 99 108 114 121 131 114 120 It is clearly seen that the variations among path loss
14 292.5 83 105 113 100 102 122 135 136
readings that share same distances is relatively large. In dense
tree environments, such variations mainly occur as a result of
15 315 101 90 108 117 117 111 132 135 the absence of LOS communication between the transmitter
and receiver, resulting in great signal fluctuation. In some
16 337.5 79 85 97 100 100 110 113 118
instances, multiple waves of the transmitted signal may arrive
at the receiver, causing multipath fading. In other instances,
TABLE II. Standard deviation and average path loss values for the dense only a small scattered portion of the transmitted signal may be
tree environment
received.
Distance [m] 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 From Fig. 3, however, one may clearly see that the average
path loss values closely follow the linear regression line,
Average Path Loss [dB] 83 90 99 103 106 112 115 119 which indicates a dependency between the path loss values
and the log of distance of the data collected in this experiment.
Standard Dev. [dB] 7.2 6.9 7.3 7.3 7.5 8.0 8.8 9.0
In fact, the linear regression provided in Fig. 3 produces a
reliable coefficient of determination (i.e., R² = 0.9796), which
Fig. 2 illustrates the various path loss values that are indicates how well the data points fit the linear regression line.
presented in TABLE I. Meanwhile, Fig. 3 illustrates the
From the tables and figures presented so far, it is clear that
average path loss values presented in TABLE II versus the log
path loss increases as a function of distance and that variation
of distance. In addition, it illustrated the linear regression line
in path loss exist. To model the variations in path loss, the
and its equation.
log-normal shadowing equation may be used [16], as follows:
 𝑑 Fig. 5 compares the average path loss values versus the log
𝐿𝑝 = 𝐿0 + 10𝛼 𝑙𝑜𝑔 ( ) + 𝑋𝜎 (2) of distance for the dense-tree, long-grass, and sparse-tree
𝑑0
environments. In addition, linear regression line and its
where 𝐿0 is the path loss value at the reference distance
equation are provided for each environment.
(𝑑0 ) in dB, 𝛼 is the path loss exponent, which represents the
rate of the path loss increase as a function of log of distance,
and 𝑋𝜎 is the normally distributed random variable with zero
mean and σ standard deviation. The linear regression equation
as it appears in Fig. 3 is:

y = 40.15x + 52.14 (3)

To model the path loss for RF propagation in dense tree
environment, the above equation may be correlated with the
log-normal shadowing equation in (2), which results in the
proposed path loss equation and parameters presented in
TABLE III.

TABLE III. Dense tree empirical path loss model

Environment Path Loss Equation 𝛂 L0 [dB] 𝑿𝝈 [dB]

Dense-tree 40.15 log(𝑑) + 52.14 4.02 52.14 7.75

Where L0 is the path loss at the reference distance (i.e., 𝑑0 =
1 meter). 𝑋𝜎 is calculated as the mean value of the standard
deviation.
V. RESULTS ANALYSIS AND COMPARISON
In [5], empirical RF data for two outdoor environments
(i.e., long-grass and sparse-tree) are presented, as seen in Fig.
4. The characterization of these two experiments is performed
utilizing the same tools and experiment setup described in
Section III. The average path loss values of all three
experiments are compared in TABLE IV.
Fig. 5. Average path loss and linear regression line for the three
environments.
From Fig. 5, it is clear that the average path loss values
closely follow the linear regression line, which again indicates
a dependency between the path loss values and distance in all
environments for the data collected in these experiments. The
coefficients of determination for the long-grass and sparse-tree
environments, R², are 0.995 and 1, respectively. Such
numbers show high reliability in the fitting of the data points.
From Fig. 5, the linear regression equations of the long-grass
and sparse-tree environments are presented in (4) and (5),
respectively.

y = 25.49x + 59.44 (4)

y = 33.36x + 60.84 (5)

TABLE V presents the empirical path loss models for the

three environments, arranged according to the values of the
path loss exponent (α).

TABLE V. Empirical path loss models for the three environments

Environment Path Loss Equation 𝛂 L0 [dB] 𝑿𝝈 [dB]

Fig. 4. (Left) unobstructed, long-grass field, (right) sparse-tree field Long-grass 25.49 log(d) + 59.44 2.55 59.44 3.84

TABLE IV. Path loss results of the three environments (in dB) Sparse-tree 33.36 log(d) + 60.84 3.34 60.84 7.30

Environment 5m 10m 15m 20m 25m 30m 35m 40m Dense-tree 40.15 log(𝑑) + 52.14 4.02 52.14 7.75

Dense-tree 83 90 99 103 106 112 115 119

According to [16], α has a value of 2 in free-space
Long-grass 78 85 89 92 95 97 99 101 environments, and it increases as obstructions present. In
TABLE V, the long-grass environment has a value of α that
Sparse-tree 84 94 100 104 107 110 112 114 equals to 2.55, which is the closest to free space among the
three environments. This is because the long weeds have
similar length as transmit and receive antennas. In many Fig. 6 illustrates the predicted path loss values of the three
instances this prevents reflected rays from arriving at the models versus the log of distance.
receiver, allowing only direct communication between
transmitter and receiver.
However, in the sparse-tree environment, the transmitter
and receiver do not always have a line of sight (LOS). This
means the collected results are a combination and average of a
LOS and NLOS RSS readings. In the LOS, the received
signal may be a product of direct and reflected waves in case
owing to the presence of ground reflection or it could
resembles the scenario in the long-grass environment where
weeds block the ground reflected elements. In NLOS,
however, the received signal depends on indirect waves that
are reflected or scattered from channel objects or foliage.
Such combination produces a high variation element in the
sparse-tree environment (i.e., 7.30).
Meanwhile, in the dense-tree environment, the value of α is
the highest among the three environments due to the absence
of LOS in almost all instances as a result of the dense presence
of trees, bushes, and foliage. Such physical effects in this
environment result in greater fading rate, which equals in this Fig. 6. Predicted path loss values of the FSPL, Two-Ray, and the dense-tree
case to 4.02. Furthermore, such environment is considered a empirical models
random medium, when compared to other mediums with LOS
communication, where a variety of objects that have great The difference between the empirical and theoretical path
effect on signal exist, including tree trunks, branches, and loss prediction is evaluated using Absolute Percentage Error
leaves. Therefore, the signal propagation in such forest-link (APE) and Mean Absolute Percentage Error (MAPE)
environment undergoes multiple scattering, reflections, statistical methods. The results from APE and MAPE are
diffractions, absorptions [18]. In some instances, various shown in the following table.
waves of the transmitted signal may arrive at the receiver,
whereas, in other instances, only a small scattered portion of TABLE VII. APE (%) and MAPE (%)
that transmitted signal is received due to heavy blockage when
a receiving node is placed inside bushes at a large distance Model 5m 10m 15m 20m 25m 30m 35m 40m Mean
from the transmitting node. Unsurprisingly, the variation in
path loss obtained in the dense tree environment is highest FSPL 30 32.61 34.34 34.62 35.19 36.04 35.96 36.21 34.37
among the three environments being compared in this paper
(i.e., 7.75). The stated physical effects in the dense-tree
environment highly justify the relatively large value obtained Two-Ray 25 21.74 20.20 19.23 18.52 18.02 18.42 17.24 19.80
for path loss variation for that environment.
TABLE VI presents path loss values predicted by Free In TABLE VII, the comparison between FSPL and Two-
Space Path Loss (FSPL), Two-Ray, and dense-tree empirical Ray models against dense tree path loss empirical model
models. The parameters used to obtain the path loss values in generates relatively high average MAPEs (i.e., 34.37% and
the FSPL and Two-Ray models are the same as parameters 19.80%). The very high FSPL MAPE indicates its
described in Section III. unsuitability as a signal strength prediction tool for WSN.
The MAPE indicates inaccuracy of Two-Ray model in signal
TABLE VI. Predicted path loss values of FSPL, Two-Ray and dense tree strength prediction in dense tree deployment scenarios of
empirical model (all expressed in dB) WSN. The differences are not unexpected given that FSPL
and Two-Ray models take into account a single and pair of
Model 5m 10m 15m 20m 25m 30m 35m 40m waves, respectively. Such assumptions are very far from the
actual signal propagation behavior at least in dense tree
FSPL 56 62 65 68 70 71 73 74 environments.

Two-Ray 60 72 79 84 88 91 93 96 VI. CONCLUSION

In this paper, RF measurements and empirical path loss
Dense-tree 80 92 99 104 108 111 114 116 model for WSN deployment in dense tree environment were
presented. The experiment was carried out in the Botanical
Garden at Florida Institute of Technology. The collected path [11] C. E. Otero, I. Kostanic, A. Peter, A. Ejnioui and L. D. Otero,
loss measurements were compared against path loss values "Intelligent System for Predicting Wireless Sensor Network Performance
in On-Demand Deployments," in IEEE Conference on Open Systems
collected in two other outdoor environments (i.e., long-grass (ICOS), Kuala Lumpur, 2012.
and sparse-tree), which were presented in a previous work [5].
[12] S. Saunders and A. Aragon-Zavala, Antennas and Propagation for
The path loss values of these different environments were Wireless Communication Systems, 2nd Edition ed., Wiley, 2007.
dissimilar. Such dissimilarity is due to the differences that [13] A. AlSayyari, I. Kostanic, C. E. Otero, M. Almeer and K. Rukieh, "An
exist in the wireless channel of each environment. This Empirical Path Loss Model for Wireless Sensor Network Deployment in
observation reveals the significance of the in-field studies and a Sand Terrain Environment," in IEEE World Forum on Internet of
examination of RF propagation for various WSN potential Things, Seoul, Korea, 2014.
outdoor deployment scenarios. Furthermore, the path loss [14] A. AlSayyari, I. Kostanic and C. E. Otero, "An Empirical Path Loss
Model for Wireless Sensor Network Deployment in a Concrete Surface
values predicted by the dense-tree empirical model were Environment," in IEEE 16th Annual Wireless and Microwave
compared against two theoretical models. Such comparison Technology Conference, , Cocoa Beach, Florida, USA, 2015.
demonstrated quite large differences between the empirical [15] G. E. Perez, A. Alsayyari and I. Kostanic, "Comparison of the
and two theoretical models. While the predicted path loss Propagation Loss of a Real-Life Wireless Sensor Network and Its
values of FSPL were too optimistic, the Two-Ray predictions Complimentary Simulation Model," in IEEE 7th International
Symposium on High Performance Computing and Communications,
were more realistic but are still inaccurate. 2015 IEEE 12th International Conference Cyberspace Safety and
Security, 2015 IEEE 17th International Conference on Embedded
Software and Systems, New York, NY, USA, 2015.
[16] H. Karl and A. Willig, Protocols and Architectures for Wireless Sensor
REFERENCES Networks, 1st Edition ed., Chichester, West Sussex, England.: Wiley,
2007.
[1] C. E. Otero, A. Velazquez, I. Kostanic, C. Subramanian, J.-P. Pinelli and [17] T. S. Rappaport, Wireless Communications: Principle and Practice, 2nd
L. Buist, "Real-Time Monitoring of Hurricane Winds using Wireless and Edition ed., Upper Saddle River, NJ, USA: Prentice Hall, 2002.
Sensor Technology," Journal of Computers, vol. 4, no. 12, pp. 1275-
1285, 2009. [18] T. Yang, T. Oda, L. Barolli, J. Iwashige, A. Durresi and F. Xhafa,
"Investigation of Packet Loss in Mobile WSNs for AODV Protocol and
[2] C. E. Otero, I. Kostanic and L. D. Otero, "A multi-hop, Multi-segment Different Radio Models," in IEEE 26th International Conference on
Architecture for Perimeter Security Over Extended Geographical Advanced Information Networking and Applications, Fukuoka, Japan.,
Regions using Wireless Sensor Networks," in IEEE Wireless Hive 2012.
Networks Conference, 2008.
[3] C. E. Otero, W. H. Shaw, I. Kostanic and L. D. Otero, "Multiresponse
Optimization of Stochastic WSN Deployment Using Response Surface
Methodology and Desirability Functions," IEEE Systems Journal, vol. 4,
no. 1, pp. 39-48, 2010.
[4] C. E. Otero, I. Kostanic and L. D. Otero, "Development of a Simulator
for Stochastic Deployment of Wireless Sensor Networks," Journal of
Networks, vol. 4, no. 8, pp. 754-762, 2009.
[5] C. E. Otero, R. Haber, A. Peter, A. AlSayyari and I. Kostanic, "A
Wireless Sensor Networks' Analytics System for Predicting Performance
in On-Demand Deployments," IEEE Systems Journal , vol. 9, no. 4, pp.
1344-1353, Dec. 2015.
[6] H.-c. Jeon, K.-D. Kwon and Y. Yoo, "Cross-Layer Counter-Based
Flooding without Location Information in Wireless Sensor Networks," in
7th International Conference on Information Technology: New
Generations (ITNG), Las Vegas, NV, USA, 2010.
[7] F. Comeau, S. Sivakumar, W. J. Phillips and W. Robertson, "A Clustered
Wireless Sensor Network Model Based on Log–Distance Path Loss," in
6th Annual Communication Networks and Services Research
Conference, Halifax, NS, Canada, 2008.
[8] Y. Nosaka, T. Yang, G. Mino, L. Barolli, F. Xhafa and A. Durresi,
"Comparison Evaluation of Single and Multi Mobile Events Wireless
Sensor Networks Using AODV Protocol," in International Conference
on Complex, Intelligent and Software Intensive Systems, Seoul, South
Korea, 2011.
[9] K. Yusof, J. Woods and S. Fitz, "Range estimation based on a deep fade
linearity function," in 2012 International Symposium on
Telecommunication Technologies (ISTT), Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia,
2012.
[10] A. AlSayyari, I. Kostanic and C. E. Otero, "An Empirical Path Loss
Model for Wireless Sensor Network Deployment in an Artificial Turf
Environment," in IEEE International Conference on Networking,
Sensing and Control, Miami, FL, USA, 2014.