Reanalyzing a simplified Markov model for the low-density P2P wireless sensor and actuator networks
Wireless sensor and actuator networks (WSAN) are an important part of the emerging Industrial Internet of Things concept. Providing a computationally simple but relatively accurate analytical quality of service (QoS) model for the wireless communications technology is an essential step in developing distributed adaptive network protocols which try to satisfy the stringent industrial QoS requirements. In this paper, a novel Markov chain analysis and delay model has been proposed for the IEEE802.11-based WSANs applications which improves the accuracy while maintaining simplicity and considering the implicit industrial characteristics. Simulation results prove its superior performance compared with similar works.
KeywordsWireless sensor and actuator network (WSAN) Industrial Internet of Things (IIoT) Peer-to-Peer (P2P ) network Delay Wireless network Markov chain
This work has been sponsored by the Shahr-e-Qods Branch, Islamic Azad University, Tehran, Iran under the research project contract “A Markov Chain Model for the IEEE802.11-based Wireless Industrial Networks with Periodic Data”.
- 1.Van Kranenburg, R. (2008). The Internet of Things: A critique of ambient technology and the all-seeing network of RFID: Institute of Network Cultures.Google Scholar
- 4.IEEE (2016). 802.11-2016—IEEE Standard for Information technology—Telecommunications and information exchange between systems Local and metropolitan area networks—Specific requirements—Part 11: Wireless LAN Medium Access Control (MAC) and Physical Layer (PHY) Specifications.Google Scholar
- 5.SIEMENS (2018). IWLAN–SCALANCE W according to IEEE 802.11a/b/g. http://w3.siemens.com/mcms/industrial-communication/en/industrial-wireless-communication/network_components/scalance-w-ieee-802-11a-b-g/pages/default.aspx. Accessed Mar 2018.
- 10.Maadani, M., & Motamedi, S. A. (2011). EDCA delay analysis of spatial diversity in IEEE 802.11-based real-time wireless sensor and actuator networks. In 2011 8th international symposium on wireless communication systems (ISWCS) (pp. 675-679): IEEEGoogle Scholar
- 11.Yazid, M., Bouallouche-Medjkoune, L., Aïssani, D., Amrouche, N., & Bakli, K. (2014). Analytical analysis of applying packet fragmentation mechanism on both basic and RTS/CTS access methods of the IEEE 802.11 b DCF network under imperfect channel and finite load conditions. Wireless Personal Communications, 77(1), 477–506.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 24.Misra, S., & Khatua, M. (2017). Packet-centric tradeoff and unfair success region in IEEE 802.11 WLANs. IEEE Transactions on Vehicular Technology, 66(5), 4223–4230.Google Scholar
- 28.Mason, R. W., & Heikes, C. A. (1993). Common format for encoding both single and double precision floating point numbers. Google Patents.Google Scholar
- 29.Cavin, D., Sasson, Y., & Schiper, A. (2002). On the accuracy of MANET simulators. In Proceedings of the second ACM international workshop on principles of mobile computing (pp. 38–43). ACM.Google Scholar
- 30.Ivanov, S., Herms, A., & Lukas, G. (2007). Experimental validation of the ns-2 wireless model using simulation, emulation, and real network. In 2007 ITG-GI conference on communication in distributed systems (KiVS) (pp. 1–12). VDEGoogle Scholar
- 31.Lucio, G. F., Paredes-Farrera, M., Jammeh, E., Fleury, M., & Reed, M. J. (2003). Opnet modeler and ns-2: Comparing the accuracy of network simulators for packet-level analysis using a network testbed. WSEAS Transactions on Computers, 2(3), 700–707.Google Scholar
- 32.Garrido, P. P., Malumbres, M. P., & Calafate, C. T. (2008). ns-2 versus OPNET: A comparative study of the IEEE 802.11 e technology on MANET environments. In Proceedings of the 1st international conference on Simulation tools and techniques for communications, networks and systems & workshops (pp. 37). ICST (Institute for Computer Sciences, Social-Informatics and Telecommunications Engineering).Google Scholar