Choosing Clutter Heights in ITU-R P.1812 Recommendation for LoRaWAN Link Budget

Abstract The Internet of Things (IoT) encompasses a diverse array of solutions with applications ranging from smart cities to environmental monitoring and industrial processes. In this context, communication techniques that offer long-range coverage, cost-effectiveness, and minimal energy consumptio...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Bryan da S. Duarte, Maurício H. C. Dias
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: Sociedade Brasileira de Microondas e Optoeletrônica; Sociedade Brasileira de Eletromagnetismo 2025-04-01
Series:Journal of Microwaves, Optoelectronics and Electromagnetic Applications
Subjects:
Online Access:http://www.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S2179-10742025000100206&lng=en&tlng=en
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:Abstract The Internet of Things (IoT) encompasses a diverse array of solutions with applications ranging from smart cities to environmental monitoring and industrial processes. In this context, communication techniques that offer long-range coverage, cost-effectiveness, and minimal energy consumption are essential. Among such technologies, LoRaWAN stands out. However, deploying wireless networks, especially for LoRaWAN, requires meticulous planning, including link budget analysis based on appropriate wave propagation path loss models. This paper investigates the suitability of the ITU-R P.1812 recommendation model for LoRaWAN radio coverage planning. We explore two distinct approaches, focusing on the choice of terrain clutter heights. Approach 1 involves a detailed point-by-point evaluation, considering different clutter heights for each pixel in the area under analysis. In contrast, Approach 2 simplifies the process by selecting a single representative clutter height based on terrain morphology. Comparative analysis using data from Brazilian measurement campaigns reveals that Approach 2 may be more favorable for rural or open environments, while Approach 1 is better suited for complex scenarios. Our findings contribute to informed decision-making in LoRaWAN network design, emphasizing the importance of terrain-specific considerations.
ISSN:2179-1074