Proceeding of the 2019 IEEE 14th Malaysia International Conference on Communication (MICC), 2-4 December 2019, Selangor, Malaysia
Factors that Impact LoRa IoT Communication
Technology
Olakunle Elijah, Tharek Abdul Rahman, Haziq.I Saharuddin, Fatin.N Khairodin
Wireless Communication Center, Universiti Teknologi Malaysia, Johor Bahru, Skudai 81310.
Email: elij_olak@yahoo.com, tharek@fke.utm.my, haziq1995@graduate.utm.my, fatin.nasuha@graduate.utm.my
Abstract—Long Range (LoRa) is a low power wide area
(LPWA) communication technology that has been developed
for internet of things (IoT) applications. LoRa is seen as one
of the popular LPWA communication technologies but there
are several factors that could impact its performance when
deployed. Hence, this paper highlights the factors that affect
LoRa performance. In addition, an outdoor experimental study
was carried out to investigate the performance of LoRa by
considering different spread factors in varying topography and
environmental scenario. The RSSI and packet receive ratio (PRR)
were used to determine the coverage area and performance
analysis, respectively. The result shows that the LoRa propagation
signal is affected by topography of the area as the coverage could
be limited and PRR reduced by 50%.
Index Terms—Coverage, LoRa, low power wide area (LPWA),
internet of things (IoT)
I. I NTRODUCTION
The Long Range (LoRa) is one of the low power wide
area (LPWA) communication technologies that have been
developed for the internet of things (IoT) applications. The
LPWA communication technologies available included Sigfox,
narrow-band IoT (NB-IoT), Weightless, and Random Phase
Multiple Access (RPMA) and LoRa. LoRa uses unlicensed
spectrum and operates within the industrial, scientific and
medical (ISM) band. The LoRa comprises of two layers which
are physical layer (PHY) and media access layers (MAC)
layer. LoRa PHY has several parameters that needs to be
configured for optimal performance. These parameters include
bandwidth, spreading factor, coding rate, carrier frequency,
and transmission power. In the MAC, LoRaWAN protocols
allows for several end nodes (EN) to communicate with the
gateway (GW). The open standard and open business model of
LoRa has made it attractive and has enabled its deployment for
different IoT use cases. The features of LoRa are 500 -125 kHz
bandwidth, 290 bps - 50 kbps data rate, 4/8, 4/7, 4/6, 4/5
code rate, 153 - 161 dBm link budget, spread factor 7 - 12,
128-bit advanced encryption standard (AES) security and uses
star topology [1], [2]. The LoRa also offers 20 dB higher
penetration compared to existing wireless technology.
There are several factors that affects the performance of
LoRa. Some of the factors that impact the performance include
Doppler effect, Fresnel zone, interference, and environmental
factors such as temperature, foliage, and rain. These factors
need to be considered when deploying LoRa. For instance,
978-1-7281-4737-6/19/$31.00 ©2019 IEEE
Authorized licensed use limited to: University of Manchester. Downloaded on August 14,2023 at 10:51:01 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
the study from [3], [4] has shown that the received signal
strength indicator (RSSI) decreases as the temperature of the
LoRa radio increases. In [5], high level of signal deterioration
in the LoRa radio communication was reported as the speed of
mobile device exceeded 40 km/h due to the effect of Doppler
shift. The correct selection of physical LoRa settings also
play important role in the deployment of LoRa for IoT use
cases as discussed in [6], [7]. Findings from [8] have shown
that topography as well as building density play a significant
role in LoRa signal propagation in a central business district.
Although the studies of LoRa in a line-of-sight (LoS) have
shown that LoRa performs well, with a reach of 22 km over
seawater [9] and 30 km in the Antarctic [10].
While most of existing work have demonstrated the appli-
cation of LoRa, there is the need to understand the factors
that impact its performance. Hence, the aim of this paper is to
study on the factors that affect the performance of LoRa and
carry out an experimental study to evaluate its performance by
considering different topographical areas in a campus location.
We show that the location of the GW, and the topography
of the area impacts the performance of LoRa. Hence, it is
important to consider these factors in the deployment of LoRa
for increased reliability.
The rest of the paper is structured as follow. In Section II,
the factors that affects the performance of LoRa are discussed.
These include the Doppler effect, Fresnel zone, interference,
and environmental factors such as temperature, foliage, and
rain. Section III presents the experimental setup and Section
IV covers the discussion of the experimental results. Finally,
Section V concludes the paper.
II. P ERFORMANCE OF L O R A
In this section, we discuss the factors that impact the
performance of LoRa LPWA. Some of the factors that impact
the performance include Doppler effect, Fresnel zone, interfer-
ence, and environmental factors such as temperature, foliage,
and rain.
A. Factors that Impacts LoRa Performance Measurement
Campaigns
1) Doppler Effect: The shift in frequency and wavelength
of waves from a source to a detector is known as Doppler ef-
fect. The LoRa employs the chirp spread spectrum (CSS) mod-
ulation scheme [11], [12]. Encoded information is presented
112
with frequency modulated pulses which increases or decreases
over a specific amount of time. This characteristic makes it
interference resistant and immune to Doppler frequency offset.
The transmitted chirp signal c(t) can be expressed as
 2
 Distance (D)
c(t) = a(t)cos (wo + wDE )t + st2 , − T2 < t <
= 0, elsewhere
The T is time, a(t) is the envelope, wo angular carrier
frequency and wDE is the angular frequency shift, s is chirp
rate and t is the duration of chirp. The Doppler effect can
cause a frequency shift wDE /s which results in a shift in
time of autocorrelation peak of the receiver. A large chirp
rate corresponds to small time shift which makes the CSS to
perform well in the presence of Doppler effect. On the other
hand, a low chirp rate causes correspond to a large time shift
which leads to high packet loss or packet errors. In LoRa,
when the coherence time (Tc ) is less than the symbol symbol
time (Ts ) fast fading occurs as a result of Doppler effect.
The (Tc ) is inversely proportional to the Doppler shift and
2SF
expressed as Tc = w2π , and Ts = BW , where BW is the
DE
modulation bandwidth (Hz ) and SF is the spreading factor.
Higher SF values are expected to suffer more from Doppler
effect because Ts doubles when the SF is increases and BW
remains constant. The effect of SF with respect to (Tc ) and
(Ts ) for various velocity have been reported in [13]. Higher
SF are more prone to Doppler effect.
2) Fresnel zone: The LoRa promises extensive coverage
in the range of 10’s of kilometers. However, the coverage
depends on the LoRa physical settings, transmitted packet size,
topology of the area and the Fresnel zone. The amount of
reflection and diffraction of signal loss between the transmitter
and receiver can be measured using the Fresnel zone [14]. It
is an elliptical shaped body around the direct line of sight
path between the end node and the gateway. The radius of the
Fresnel zone can be computed using the following equation

0.6 × D
RF Z (m) = 8.657 × (2)
f
where D is the distance in km between the EN and the GW, f
is the frequency (GHz). (2) assuming the earth is flat. To take
into account the height of the earth curvature allowance (H),
can be calculated using the following equation H = 1000 ×
D2 /(8×Rearth ). Where Rearth is the earth radius in km (8504
km). A 60 % clearance of obstruction between the transmitter
and receiver is expected for the Fresnel zone to achieve highest
performance of the wireless link as illustrated in Fig. 1. For
good coverage, the GW should be placed outdoors at location
with minimal obstacles in the Fresnel zone and the antenna
polarization of both EN and GW should be vertical.
3) Environmental Factors: There are several environmental
factors that affect the performance of LoRa communication
technology. These factors include weather conditions such as
temperature and humidity, rain fall, and foliage [3]–[5], [15].
The factors are discussed as follows.
Authorized licensed use limited to: University of Manchester. Downloaded on August 14,2023 at 10:51:01 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
Fresnel Zone
RFZZ
EN GW
T
2 (1) Earth curvature Height (H)
Fresnel Zone
EN
60 % cclear
60 lleea
ea r
GW
40 % b
40 blockage
lo
loocckage
Distance (D)
Fig. 1. Fresnel zone
a) Temperature: The effects of temperature variations
on the network performance has been studied in [4], [16],
[17]. The increase in ambient temperature has been shown to
degrade the rate of packet loss, link quality, signal strength and
a reduction in the radio receive power [17], [18]. The increase
in temperature could slow down the microcontrollers which
can result to clock drifts that affects protocol which rely on
synchronization [16], [19]. The characteristics of the voltage
controlled oscillator (VCO), crystal frequency accuracy is said
to vary with temperature [20] which invariably affects the
RSSI performance. Increased packet lost, number of corrupted
packet, reduction of signal strength due to the gradual increase
in temperature of LoRa nodes have been reported in [3], [4].
b) Humidity: An outdoor experiment conducted in [3]
have shown correlation between packet reception ratio, re-
ceived signal strength, temperature and humidity. Although
the study in [21] have shown that the correlation of absolute
humidity, precipitation with received signal strength is less
pronounced compared to correlation with temperature.
c) Rain Attenuation: The rate, density, drop size of rain
in addition to the effective path length between the transmitter
and the receiver and frequency band affect the reliability, avail-
ability and performance of the propagation of communication
link. Heavy rain with large drop sizes in tropical region like
Malaysia could result to attenuation of propagated signal [22]
as a result of interaction between incident electromagnetic
radio waves and the rain-filled medium. Although, rain at-
tenuation is critical with higher frequency bands (> 1GHz)
compared to lower frequency bands (sub 1GHz). There are
currently no reported studies on the effect of rain on LoRa
communication in tropical region like Malaysia. Hence, it is
an open research area.
d) Foliage and Vegetation: The effect of foliage on the
path-loss, shadowing and multipath dispersion in wireless
communication has been studied and reported in the literature
[23], [24]. The signal propagation can be affected by the
dielectric parameters of the trees as a result of change in
113
humidity level. Also, the movement of foliage medium caused
my wind can create temporal variations of transmitted signals.
These two factors: wind and humidity influence the tree
shadowing effects. Hence, analytical methods such as the
radiative energy transfer and wave theory have been used to
develop foliage loss models [23]. Recent studies on impact of
vegetation have been have shown that vegetation dramatically
reduces the communication range of LoRa LPWAN [15],
[25]. The experimental study carried out by Iova et al. [15]
shows that there is a substantial drop in range and quality in
a non-line of sight vegetation environment. The experiment
conducted in tropical foliage environment using the 433 MHz
band in [25] shows degradation in RSSI as the distance
increases between the EN and GW in rubber plantation and a
light secondary jungle. However, further studies are needed to
characterize the channel propagation and path-loss model for
different foliage environment using LoRa LPWAN.
4) Interference: Interference is a major concern for the use
of unlicensed spectrum especially in the ISM bands. Although,
LoRa utilizes a spread spectrum technique to spread the in-
terference in the received bandwidth and minimize its impact.
There are still possible causes of interference in the LoRaWAN
which are inter-SF interference and co-SF interference [26]–
[28], inter-network interference and interference from other
ISM bands [29]. The co-SF interference as described in [26]
occurs when a different EN use same channel with same SF of
a desired EN thereby making the signal-to-interference ratio
(SIR) of desired transmission to be below a certain threshold.
The inter-SF interference can be caused by transmissions from
different SFs which are not immune from transmission from
adjacent SFs. Although the different SFs are assumed to be
orthogonal to each other but studies from [26] have shown
otherwise. The inter-SF interference can lead to degradation
of network performance as the number of GW scales in a
coverage area.
The signal to interference ration can be expressed as [30]
ζT x − δCL
ζRx = , (3)
N +I
where ζRx is the received signal to interference noise ratio
(dB), ζT x is the transmitted power (dBm), δCL is the coupling
loss (dB) N is the effective noise power and I is the modeled
interference (dBm).
5) LoRa Physical Setting: The different LoRa PHY settings
such as the code rates, transmission power, code rate and
spread factor need to be configured for optimal performance.
There are about 6720 possible settings that can be selected
[31] and these setting needs to put into consideration the
factors mentioned above for optimal performance. Most initial
deployment start with basic settings and adjust for improve
performance. Wrong settings can affect the packet receive ratio
of the data transmitted from LoRa thereby leading to poor
performance and reliability.
114
Authorized licensed use limited to: University of Manchester. Downloaded on August 14,2023 at 10:51:01 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
III. E XPERIMENT S ETUP
The hardware used in this project are shown in Fig. 2.
The setup of the RHF2S008 gateway was mounted on a lamp
post in a waterproof enclosure close to wireless communica-
tion center (WCC), Universiti of Teknologi Malaysai (UTM).
A Pycom-Fipy which makes use of radio module semtech
SX1272 LoRa transceiver was used in this project as the EN
device. A simple test equipment was built using the Pycom-
Fipy to transmit and receive data from the LoRa GW. The
GW was configured to forward packet using the Ethernet to
the Loriot network server [32]. The RSSI, SNR and packets
are monitored on the Loriot dashboard.
A. System Configuration and Parameters
TABLE I
S YSTEM PARAMETERS
S/N Parameters Values Units
1 Code rate 4/5
2 Transmit power 14 dB
3 Spreading factors 7,8,9,10
4 Bandwidth 125 kHz
5 Packet Size 21 bytes
6 End-device output power +14 dBm
7 End-device Antenna gain +5 dBi
8 Carrier Frequency 923 MHz
The LoRa test equipment is used as the end node to send
data to the GW at the different locations shown in Fig.
3. The parameters shown in Table I were used. For each
spread factor, sixty packets of 21 bytes were sent from each
location to the LoRa GW and an acknowledgment is sent via
downlink from network server via the LoRa GW. If there is
no acknowledgment the transmission times out and a new SF
is selected.
IV. R ESULTS AND D ISCUSSION
We present findings from the experimental campaign in this
section. The RSSI and packet receive ratio (PRR) performance
metrics are used to determine the coverage while considering
the topology of the area and impact of environmental factors
on the performance of LoRa wide area network (LoRaWAN).
First, the outdoor coverage using the highest SF10 is presented
and followed by the PRR for different SF (7-10).
A. Coverage
The SF10 is selected in this experiment as it is the highest
SF supported in this region. In addition, it offers the furthest
distance in terms of coverage. The different scenarios where
examined which are low rise building (locations A1 - A6),
open space (location B1 - B6), high rise building (location
C1 - C4), and vegetation areas (location D1 - D4). The
heatmap of the coverage area of the LoRaWAN is shown of
Fig. 3 and the elevation of the different locations are shown
in Fig. 4. The heatmap shows the distance and the average
RSSI obtainable at each location. The connectivity range was
determined using the SF-10 and CR of 4/5 and ability of the
 (a) (b) (c) (d)

Fig. 2. Hardware setup: (a) Setup of gateway, (b) RHF2S008 gateway (c) LoRa test equipment (d) Pycom-Fipy

D-Vegetation

C –High Rise
buildings

Gateway
B – Open space

A – Low rise
building

SF-10, C/R -4/5

Fig. 3. Coverage area in Universiti Teknologi Malaysia, Skudai, Johor Bahru, Malaysia.

EN to join the LoRaWAN. The longest range was achieved in Topology of LoRaWAN GW coverage area
80
open space scenario with a distance of 1.19 km and minimum D3-76.1

coverage across the vegetation with a distance of 0.512 km. 70

D4-69.3

The connective range shows that equal performance cannot 60 D1-58.2

GPS Altitude (m)

be obtained within the same radius from the GW. Hence, the 50 GW Location D2-51.7
B1-45.2
performance test is necessary for deployment of GW and the 40
A3-42.1

optimal position needs to be determined for location of the A1-32.6

B2-36.2
C4-31.1
30 A2-30.4 B5-28
GW. B4-24.2
B6-29 C2-22
20 C1-22.3
A5-13.4 C3-19.9
Fig.3, shows the GPS altitude of the different locations were A4-14.5
A6-15.3
B3-17.4

10
the coverage test was conducted. 0 5 10 15
Coverage locations in UTM Skudia Malaysia
20 25

1) Packet Receive Ratio: The PRR is the ratio of the

number of successful packets delivered over the number of
total packet sent using the various LoRa settings within the
coverage area of the LoRaWAN. The LoRa setting are shown
in Table I. The results are shown in Table II. The RSSI
performance using the different spread factors (SF7, SF8,
SF9 and SF10) at the different locations shows that at closer
distance to the GW the SF7 and SF8 perform well. However, as
Fig. 4. Altitude of coverage areas
the distance increases and the topography changes, the SF9 and
SF10 offer better performance in some cases. It is important
to note that environmental conditions were not considered in
this study, that is, the level of temperature and humidity. This

115
Authorized licensed use limited to: University of Manchester. Downloaded on August 14,2023 at 10:51:01 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
can also influence the RSSI and PRR. ACKNOWLEDGMENT
χpd This research is supported by the Ministry of Education
P RR (%) = × 100 (4)
χT ps (MOE) Malaysia and Universiti Teknologi Malaysia (UTM)
under the vote number 04G26 and 19H38.
where χpd is the successful packets received and χT ps is
the total packet sent. R EFERENCES
[1] W. Ayoub, A. E. Samhat, F. Nouvel, M. Mroue, and J. Prévotet. Internet
SF7
Average Packet Receive Ratio PPR(%) - Low rise buildings SF8 of mobile things: Overview of LoRaWAN, DASH7, and NB-IoT in
100 SF9
LPWANs standards and supported mobility. IEEE Communications
PPR (%)

SF10
50 Surveys Tutorials, pages 1–1, 2018.
0
[2] Kais Mekki, Eddy Bajic, Frederic Chaxel, and Fernand Meyer. A com-
A1-135.85 A2-263.64 A3-367.24 A4-512.29 A5-697.15 A6-790.13
Locations from GW (m)
parative study of LPWAN technologies for large-scale IoT deployment.
100
Average Packet Receive Ratio PPR(%) - Open space ICT Express, 5(1):1–7, 2019.
[3] Marco Cattani, Carlo Alberto Boano, and Kay Römer. An experimental
PPR (%)

50
evaluation of the reliability of LoRa long-range low-power wireless
0
B1-28.7 B2-114.69 B3-269.7 B4-614.07 B5-902.04 B6 -1110
communication. Journal of Sensor and Actuator Networks, 6(2):7, 2017.
Locations from GW (m) [4] Carlo Alberto Boano, Marco Cattani, and Kay Römer. Impact of tem-
Average Packet Receive Ratio PPR(%) - High rise building
100 perature variations on the reliability of lora-an experimental evaluation.
PPR (%)

50
In SENSORNETS, pages 39–50, 2018.
[5] Juha Petäjäjärvi, Konstantin Mikhaylov, Marko Pettissalo, Janne Jan-
0
C1-182.73 C2-318.57 C3-582.7 C4-678.63 hunen, and Jari Iinatti. Performance of a low-power wide-area
Locations from GW (m)
Average Packet Receive Ratio PPR(%) - Vegetation
network based on LoRa technology: Doppler robustness, scalability,
100
and coverage. International Journal of Distributed Sensor Networks,
PPR (%)

50
0 [6] Ramon Sanchez-Iborra, Jesus Sanchez-Gomez, Juan Ballesta-Viñas,
D1-130.8 D2-236.16 D3-370.13
Locations from GW (m)
Fig. 5. Packet Receive Ratio (PRR)
The graphical representation of the PPR are shown in Fig.
5. The different scenarios open space, low rise building, high
rise building, and vegetation areas are presented. The longer
propagation path was observed in the open space reaching
a distance of 1.1 km. The EN is able to join the LoRaWAN
network at 1.1 km however with less than 50% reduction in the
PRR. The SF9 and SF10 offers better PRR at longer distance
compared to SF8 and SF7. The vegetation offered shortest
range of communication due to the topology as can be seen
in Fig. 3 where the GPS altitude is much higher compared to
the altitude of the GW. In addition, the effect of foliage and
obstruction due to Frensel zone impacts on the LoRa coverage
within the area. The effect of topology can be noticed from
the coverage in the vegetation areas as location D4 offered
better PRR than location D3 in Fig. 5.
V. C ONCLUSION AND F UTURE W ORKS
In this paper, the factors that affect the performance of
LoRa communication technology have been discussed. Factors
identified include the Doppler effect, Fresnel zone, environ-
mental factors, and interference. An experiment was setup
using a LoRa outdoor gateway to test the performance of LoRa
communication. The impact of topology and environment fac-
tors from different scenarios were investigated using different
LoRa SFs. The experimental results show that the position
of the GW, environmental scenarios and topology needs to
be considered when deploying LoRaWAN. Future work will
investigate how to achieve optimal coverage, how the rain
in tropical regions like Malaysia impacts the performance of
LoRa and the mitigation techniques needed to improve its
performance.
13(3):1550147717699412, 2017.
D4-512.46
Maria-Dolores Cano, and Antonio F Skarmeta. Performance evaluation
of LoRa considering scenario conditions. Sensors, 18(3):772, 2018.
[7] Marco Centenaro, Lorenzo Vangelista, Andrea Zanella, and Michele
Zorzi. Long-range communications in unlicensed bands: The rising stars
in the IoT and smart city scenarios. IEEE Wireless Communications,
23(5):60–67, 2016.
[8] A. J. Wixted, P. Kinnaird, H. Larijani, A. Tait, A. Ahmadinia, and
N. Strachan. Evaluation of LoRa and LoRaWAN for wireless sensor
networks. In 2016 IEEE SENSORS, pages 1–3, Oct 2016.
[9] Nikola Jovalekic, Vujo Drndarevic, Ermanno Pietrosemoli, Iain Darby,
and Marco Zennaro. Experimental study of LoRa transmission over
seawater. Sensors, 18(9):2853, 2018.
[10] Johnny Gaelens, Patrick Van Torre, Jo Verhaevert, and Hendrik Rogier.
LoRa mobile-to-base-station channel characterization in the antarctic.
Sensors, 17(8):1903, 2017.
[11] Vamsi Talla, Mehrdad Hessar, Bryce Kellogg, Ali Najafi, Joshua R
Smith, and Shyamnath Gollakota. LoRa backscatter: Enabling the vision
of ubiquitous connectivity. Proceedings of the ACM on Interactive,
Mobile, Wearable and Ubiquitous Technologies, 1(3):105, 2017.
[12] Lorenzo Vangelista. Frequency shift chirp modulation: The LoRa
modulation. IEEE Signal Processing Letters, 24(12):1818–1821, 2017.
[13] Juha Petäjäjärvi, Konstantin Mikhaylov, Marko Pettissalo, Janne Jan-
hunen, and Jari Iinatti. Performance of a low-power wide-area
network based on LoRa technology: Doppler robustness, scalability,
and coverage. International Journal of Distributed Sensor Networks,
13(3):1550147717699412, 2017.
[14] Mohamed Aref and Axel Sikora. Free space range measurements with
semtech LoRaT M technology. In Wireless Systems within the Confer-
ences on Intelligent Data Acquisition and Advanced Computing Systems:
Technology and Applications (IDAACS-SWS), 2014 2nd International
Symposium on, pages 19–23. IEEE, 2014.
[15] Oana Iova, Amy Murphy, Gian Pietro Picco, Lorenzo Ghiro, Davide
Molteni, Federico Ossi, and Francesca Cagnacci. LoRa from the city
to the mountains: Exploration of hardware and environmental factors.
In Proceedings of the 2017 International Conference on Embedded
Wireless Systems and Networks, 2017.
[16] C. A. Boano, M. Zúñiga, J. Brown, U. Roedig, C. Keppitiyagama, and
K. Römer. TempLab: A testbed infrastructure to study the impact of
temperature on wireless sensor networks. In IPSN-14 Proceedings of
the 13th International Symposium on Information Processing in Sensor
Networks, pages 95–106, April 2014.
[17] Carlo Alberto Boano, Hjalmar Wennerstrom, Marco Zuniga, James
Brown, Chamath Keppitiyagama, Felix Oppermann, Utz Roedig, Lars-
Ake Norden, Thiemo Voigt, and Kay RoÌĹmer. Hot packets: A
systematic evaluation of the effect of temperature on low power wireless
transceivers. 2013.

116
Authorized licensed use limited to: University of Manchester. Downloaded on August 14,2023 at 10:51:01 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
 TABLE II
AVERAGE RECEIVED SIGNAL STRENGTH AND PRR FROM DIFFERENT LOCATIONS IN F IG . 3 AND SPREADING FACTORS

Locations SF = 7, BW = 125 kHz SF = 8, BW = 125 kHz SF = 9, BW = 125 kHz SF = 10, BW = 125 kHz
from
GW
RRR (%) RSSI (dBm) PRR (%) RSSI (dBm) PRR (%) RSSI (dBm) PRR (%) RSSI (dBm)
A1 100 -102.15 100 -98.60 100 -99.45 100 -95.10
A2 100 -113.93 100 -115.05 100 -118.28 85 -118.00
A3 72.5 -119.83 72.5 -119.83 95 -120.42 97.5 -119.36
A4 27.5 -120.18 52.5 -120.62 75 -120.50 75 -120.53
A5 57.5 -119.65 75 -120.27 80 -120.53 90 -120.5
A6 22.5 -119.33 37.5 -119.80 47.5 -120.84 45 -120.28
B1 100 -78.23 100 -78.65 100 -80.4 100 -77.15
B2 100 -97.18 100 -97.53 100 -96.7 97.5 -93.56
B3 90 -117.13 92.5 -116.81 97.5 -118.74 92.5 -114.51
B4 100 -105.48 100 -106.15 100 -105.4 97.5 -107.41
B5 85 -118.12 85 -116.97 92.5 -119.38 85 -117.35
B6 35 -119.72 65 -120.34 52.5 -121.05 70 -120.5
C1 100 -108.55 100 -106.83 100 -109.80 95 -106.13
C2 75 -118.43 85 -117.88 90 -120.28 92.5 -119.46
C3 57.5 -119.35 80 -119.16 85 -120.09 82.5 -118.09
C4 27.5 -120.00 60 -120.04 70 -120.53 27.5 -120.91
D1 100 -102..63 100 -101.38 100 -102.50 97.5 -97.69
D2 97.5 -117.15 95 -117.08 87.5 -118.26 92.5 -118.46
D3 70 -120.04 27.5 -120.00 52.5 -120.00 70 -120.04
D4 72.5 -119.20 95 -119.50 95 -119.86 87.5 -119.11

[18] C. A. Boano, N. Tsiftes, T. Voigt, J. Brown, and U. Roedig. The and M. Sorensen. Interference impact on coverage and capacity for low
impact of temperature on outdoor industrial sensornet applications. IEEE power wide area IoT networks. In 2017 IEEE Wireless Communications
Transactions on Industrial Informatics, 6(3):451–459, Aug 2010. and Networking Conference (WCNC), pages 1–6, March 2017.
[19] Petcharat Suriyachai, James Brown, and Utz Roedig. Time-critical data [30] Mads Lauridsen, Benny Vejlgaard, Istvan Z Kovacs, Huan Nguyen, and
delivery in wireless sensor networks. In International Conference on Preben Mogensen. Interference measurements in the european 868 mhz
Distributed Computing in Sensor Systems, pages 216–229. Springer, ISM band with focus on LoRa and SigFox. In Wireless Communications
2010. and Networking Conference (WCNC), 2017 IEEE, pages 1–6. IEEE,
[20] Jari Luomala and Ismo Hakala. Effects of temperature and humidity on 2017.
radio signal strength in outdoor wireless sensor networks. In Computer [31] M. Bor and U. Roedig. LoRa transmission parameter selection. In
Science and Information Systems (FedCSIS), 2015 Federated Conference 2017 13th International Conference on Distributed Computing in Sensor
on, pages 1247–1255. IEEE, 2015. Systems (DCOSS), pages 27–34, June 2017.
[21] Hjalmar Wennerström, Frederik Hermans, Olof Rensfelt, Christian [32] Loriot, Accessed on April 01, 2019.
Rohner, and Lars-Åke Nordén. A long-term study of correlations
between meteorological conditions and 802.15. 4 link performance. In
2013 IEEE International Conference on Sensing, Communications and
Networking (SECON), pages 221–229. IEEE, 2013.
[22] I. Shayea, T. Abd. Rahman, M. Hadri Azmi, and M. R. Islam. Real
measurement study for rain rate and rain attenuation conducted over 26
GHz microwave 5G link system in malaysia. IEEE Access, 6:19044–
19064, 2018.
[23] Yu Song Meng and Yee Hui Lee. Investigations of foliage effect
on modern wireless communication systems: A review. Progress In
Electromagnetics Research, 105:313–332, 2010.
[24] Michael Cheffena and Torbjörn Ekman. Dynamic model of signal
fading due to swaying vegetation. EURASIP J. Wirel. Commun. Netw.,
2009:2:1–2:11, February 2009.
[25] Khairol Amali Ahmad, Mohd Sharil Salleh, Jivitraa Devi Segaran,
and Fakroul Ridzuan Hashim. Impact of foliage on LoRa 433 MHz
propagation in tropical environment. In AIP Conference Proceedings,
volume 1930, page 020009. AIP Publishing, 2018.
[26] A. Mahmood, E. Sisinni, L. Guntupalli, R. Rondon, S. A. Hassan, and
M. Gidlund. Scalability analysis of a LoRa network under imperfect
orthogonality. IEEE Transactions on Industrial Informatics, pages 1–1,
2018.
[27] K. Mikhaylov, J. Petäjäjärvi, and A. Pouttu. Effect of downlink traffic
on performance of LoRaWAN LPWA networks: Empirical study. In
2018 IEEE 29th Annual International Symposium on Personal, Indoor
and Mobile Radio Communications (PIMRC), pages 1–6, Sep. 2018.
[28] G. Zhu, C. Liao, M. Suzuki, Y. Narusue, and H. Morikawa. Evaluation
of LoRa receiver performance under co-technology interference. In 2018
15th IEEE Annual Consumer Communications Networking Conference
(CCNC), pages 1–7, Jan 2018.
[29] B. Vejlgaard, M. Lauridsen, H. Nguyen, I. Z. Kovacs, P. Mogensen,

117
Authorized licensed use limited to: University of Manchester. Downloaded on August 14,2023 at 10:51:01 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.