Advertisement

Internet of Things on Power Line Communications: An Experimental Performance Analysis

  • Luca Davoli
  • Luca Veltri
  • Gianluigi Ferrari
  • Umberto Amadei
Chapter
Part of the Energy Systems in Electrical Engineering book series (ESIEE)

Abstract

The giant information exchange enabled by the Internet of Things (IoT) paradigm, i.e. by a “network of networks” of smart and connected devices, will likely exploit electrical lines as a ready-to-use infrastructure. Power Line Communications (PLC) have received a significant attention in the last decade, as electrical lines are not used as simple energy supply media, but as information carriers. Among the different aspects of PLC-based architectures, an interesting and important analysis have to be reserved to security aspects that should be adopted in similar infrastructures, having that they are crucial to deliver trustworthy and reliable systems and, hence, to support users relying on available services, especially in case in which they should be inherently secure at the physical level (e.g. against unauthorised signal removal/interruption and eavesdropping, since they are difficult and dangerous). Motivated by the relevant impact of PLC on IoT, in this chapter we investigate experimentally the performance of IoT systems on PLC in indoor environments, considering a vendor-provided application tool and a self-developed Java library. The experimental tests are carried out on both cold and hot electrical lines, evaluating both fixed-size and variable-length power lines. Our results show that IoT-oriented PLC can reach a throughput of 8 kbps on a 300-m cold line and of 6 kbps on a 300-m hot line. Further experimental efforts will be oriented to performance analyses in presence of the adoption of security measures.

Keywords

IoT PLC Performance Experimental analysis Smart grid 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank Xiaolin Lu, Wonsoo Kim, Ariton Xhafa and Andrew Soukup (Texas Instruments Research Center, Dallas, TX, USA) for the fundamental support and useful discussions.

References

  1. 1.
    V.C. Gungor et al., Smart grid technologies: communication technologies and standards. IEEE Trans. Industr. Inf. 7(4), 529–539 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1109/TII.2011.2166794CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    S. Jeschke et al., Industrial internet of things and cyber manufacturing systems, in Industrial Internet of Things: Cybermanufacturing Systems (Springer International Publishing, Cham, 2016), pp. 3–19.  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-42559-7_1
  3. 3.
    M. Hermann et al., Design principles for Industries 4.0 scenarios, in 2016 49th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS), pp. 3928–3937. https://doi.org/10.1109/hicss.2016.488
  4. 4.
    G3-PLC Alliance. https://goo.gl/EZA7r8. Accessed 18 Jan 2018
  5. 5.
    S. Cirani et al., A scalable and self-configuring architecture for service discovery in the internet of things. IEEE Internet Things J. 1(5), 508–521 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1109/JIOT.2014.2358296CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    L. Belli et al., A scalable big stream cloud architecture for the internet of things. Int. J. Syst. Service-Oriented Eng. 5(4), 26–53 (2015). https://doi.org/10.4018/IJSSOE.2015100102CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    K. De Craemer, G. Deconinck, Analysis of state-of-the-art smart metering communication standards, in Proceedings of the 5th Young Researchers Symposium. https://goo.gl/4SkCwa. Accessed 19 Jan 2017
  8. 8.
    Z. Shelby et al., The constrained application protocol (CoAP). RFC 7252, Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF). https://goo.gl/pJ2Ngg. Accessed 18 Jan 2018
  9. 9.
    S. Cirani et al., CoSIP: a constrained session initiation protocol for the internet of things, in Advances in Service-Oriented and Cloud Computing. ESOCC 2013. Communications in Computer and Information Science, vol. 393, pp. 13–24, Sept 2013. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-45364-9_2
  10. 10.
    S. Cirani et al., Performance evaluation of a SIP-based constrained peer-to-peer overlay, in 2014 International Conference on High Performance Computing Simulation (HPCS), Bologna, pp. 432–435, July 2014. https://doi.org/10.1109/hpcsim.2014.6903717
  11. 11.
    L. Belli et al., Design and deployment of an IoT application-oriented testbed. IEEE Comput. 48(9), 32–40 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1109/MC.2015.253CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    European Committee for Electrotechnical Standardization (CENELEC). https://goo.gl/Vcymfn. Accessed 18 Jan 2018
  13. 13.
    Association of Radio Industries and Businesses (ARIB). https://goo.gl/UK9yof. Accessed 18 Jan 2018
  14. 14.
    Federal Communications Commission (FCC). https://goo.gl/1yjIfA. Accessed 19 Jan 2018
  15. 15.
    China Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI). https://goo.gl/uiWZ3H. Accessed 18 Jan 2018
  16. 16.
    Texas Instruments: Power Line Communications. https://goo.gl/RjJsAu. Accessed 18 Jan 2018
  17. 17.
    Maxim Integrated: Powerline Communications. https://goo.gl/Y4kooA. Accessed 18 Jan 2018
  18. 18.
    STMicroelectronics: Power Line Transceivers. https://goo.gl/ekuivi. Accessed 18 Jan 2018
  19. 19.
    PRIME Alliance. https://goo.gl/tii1mN. Accessed 18 Jan 2018
  20. 20.
    HomePlug Alliance. https://goo.gl/EU7Inj. Accessed 18 Jan 2018
  21. 21.
    V. Oksman, J. Zhang, G.HNEM: the new ITU-T standard on narrowband PLC technology. IEEE Commun. Mag. 49(12), 36–44 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1109/MCOM.2011.6094004CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    IEEE P1901.2 Standard. https://goo.gl/rM84pD. Accessed 18 Jan 2018
  23. 23.
    Texas Instruments: TI PLC Development Kit Design Guide. https://goo.gl/g9hnvF. Accessed 18 Jan 2018
  24. 24.
    Texas Instruments: Developing a Flexible PLC Implementation for Worldwide Deployment. https://goo.gl/MHiqtZ. Accessed 18 Jan 2018
  25. 25.
    E. Ancillotti et al., The role of communication systems in smart grids: architectures, technical solutions and research challenges. Comput. Commun. 36(17–18), 1665–1697 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.comcom.2013.09.004CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    N. Bui et al., The internet of energy: a web-enabled smart grid system. IEEE Network 26(4), 39–45 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1109/MNET.2012.6246751CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF). URL https://goo.gl/saehq (accessed January 19, 2018)
  28. 28.
    European Telecommunications Standards Institute (ETSI). https://goo.gl/kLoUa. Accessed 18 Jan 2018
  29. 29.
    World Wide Web Consortium (W3C). https://goo.gl/qgIivU. Accessed 18 Jan 2018
  30. 30.
    S. Galli et al., For the grid and through the grid: the role of power line communications in the smart grid. Proc. IEEE 99(6), 998–1027 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1109/JPROC.2011.2109670CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    S. Salsano et al., PMSR—Poor Man’s segment routing, a minimalistic approach to segment routing and a traffic engineering use case, in 2016 IEEE/IFIP Network Operations and Management Symposium (NOMS 2016), pp. 598–604 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1109/noms.2016.7502864
  32. 32.
    M. Hoch, Comparison of PLC G3 and PRIME, in 2011 IEEE International Symposium on Power Line Communications and Its Applications (ISPLC), pp. 165–169 (2011).  https://doi.org/10.1109/isplc.2011.5764384
  33. 33.
    H.C. Ferreira et al., Power line communications: theory and applications for narrowband and broadband communications over power lines (2010). https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470661291
  34. 34.
    B. Masood, S. Baig, Standardization and deployment scenario of next generation NB-PLC technologies. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 65, 1033–1047 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2016.07.060CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    T.A. Papadopoulos et al., Application of narrowband power-line communication in medium-voltage smart distribution grids. IEEE Trans. Power Deliv. 28(2), 981–988 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1109/TPWRD.2012.2230344CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    M. Sayed, N. Al-Dhahir, Narrowband-PLC/wireless diversity for smart grid communications, in 2014 IEEE Global Communications Conference, pp. 2966–2971 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1109/glocom.2014.7037259
  37. 37.
    K. Razazian, J. Yazdani, CENELEC and powerline communication specification in realization of smart grid technology, in 2011 2nd IEEE PES International Conference and Exhibition on Innovative Smart Grid Technologies, pp. 1–7 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1109/isgteurope.2011.6162685
  38. 38.
    B. Adebisi et al., Narrowband PLC channel modelling for smart grid applications, in 2014 9th International Symposium on Communication Systems, Networks Digital Sign (CSNDSP), pp. 67–72 (2014).  https://doi.org/10.1109/csndsp.2014.6923800
  39. 39.
    H. Kellerbauer, H. Hirsch, Simulation of powerline communication with OMNeT++ and INET-framework, in 2011 IEEE International Symposium on Power Line Communications and Its Applications (ISPLC), pp. 213–217 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1109/isplc.2011.5764395
  40. 40.
    Discrete Event Simulator: OMNeT++. https://goo.gl/mGlZC9. Accessed 18 Jan 2018
  41. 41.
    D.P.F. Miller, H. Vakilzadian, Ubiquitous networks: power line communication and internet of things in smart home environments, in IEEE International Conference on Electro/Information Technology, pp. 596–601 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1109/eit.2014.6871832
  42. 42.
    Q. Ou et al., Application of internet of things in smart grid power transmission, in 2012 Third FTRA International Conference on Mobile, Ubiquitous, and Intelligent Computing (MUSIC), pp. 96–100 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1109/music.2012.24
  43. 43.
    X. Chen et al., Application of internet of things in power-line monitoring, in International Conference on Cyber-Enabled Distributed Computing and Knowledge Discovery, pp. 423–426 (2012).  https://doi.org/10.1109/cyberc.2012.77
  44. 44.
    Y. Zhen et al., Study of architecture of power internet of things, in IET International Conference on Communication Technology and Application (ICCTA 2011), pp. 718–722 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1049/cp.2011.0762
  45. 45.
    A. Hosseinpour et al., Security and feasibility of power line communication system, in Global Security, Safety and Sustainability: Tomorrow’s Challenges of Cyber Security, pp. 244–251 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-23276-8_22
  46. 46.
    L. Davoli et al., Integration of Wi-Fi mobile nodes in a web of things testbed,” ICT Exp. Special Issue ICT Convergence Internet Things (IoT) 2(3), 96–99 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.icte.2016.07.001
  47. 47.
    R. Gustavsson, Security issues and power line communication, in International Symposium on Power Line Communications and Its Applications (ISPLC), pp. 311–318 (2011). https://goo.gl/tb8asB. Accessed 18 Jan 2018
  48. 48.
    L. Chhaya et al., Wireless sensor network based smart grid communications: cyber attacks, intrusion detection system and topology control. Electronics 6(1) (2017). https://doi.org/10.3390/electronics6010005
  49. 49.
    C. Montenegro et al., Transmission of IPv6 packets over IEEE 802.15.4 networks, in RFC 4944, The Internet Engineering Task Force (2007). https://goo.gl/KyJC8b. Accessed 18 Jan 2018
  50. 50.
    Official IEEE 802.11 Working Group (WG) Project Timelines. https://goo.gl/jCghRD. Accessed 18 Jan 2018
  51. 51.
    K. Pahlavan, P. Krishnamurthy, IEEE 802.3 ethernet, in Networking Fundamentals: Wide, Local and Personal Area Communications, pp. 656 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470779422.ch8
  52. 52.
    L. Belli et al., An open-source cloud architecture for big stream IoT applications, in Interoperability and Open-Source Solutions for the Internet of Things, pp. 73–88 (2015).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-16546-2_7
  53. 53.
    L. Davoli et al., An anonymization protocol for the internet of things, in 2017 International Symposium on Wireless Communication Systems (ISWCS), pp. 459–464 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1109/iswcs.2017.8108159
  54. 54.
    L. Davoli et al., THORIN: an efficient module for federated access and threat mitigation in big stream cloud architectures. IEEE Cloud Comput. PP (99), 1–1. https://doi.org/10.1109/mcc.2017.455155318
  55. 55.
    C. De Laat et al., Generic AAA architecture, in RFC 2903 (The Internet Engineering Task Force, 2000). https://goo.gl/tp8pwT. Accessed 18 Jan 2018
  56. 56.
    L. Belli et al., Applying security to a big stream cloud architecture for the internet of things. Int. J. Distrib. Syst. Technol. 7(1), 37–58 (2016). https://doi.org/10.4018/IJDST.2016010103CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    J. Heo et al., Identity-based mutual device authentication schemes for PLC system, in 2008 IEEE International Symposium on Power Line Communications and Its Applications (ISPLC), pp. 47–51 (2008).  https://doi.org/10.1109/isplc.2008.4510397
  58. 58.
    J.S. Lee et al., A comparative study of wireless protocols: Bluetooth, UWB, ZigBee, and Wi-Fi, in IECON 2007—33rd Annual Conference of the IEEE Industrial Electronics Society, pp. 46–51 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1109/iecon.2007.4460126
  59. 59.
    L. Davoli et al., From micro to macro IoT: challenges and solutions in the integration of IEEE 802.15.4/802.11 and sub-GHz technologies. IEEE Internet Things J. PP (1), 1–1 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1109/jiot.2017.2747900
  60. 60.
    S. Frankel et al., The AES-CBC cipher algorithm and its use with IPsec, in RFC 3602 (The Internet Engineering Task Force, 2003). https://goo.gl/qKx9b. Accessed 19 Jan 2018
  61. 61.
    K. Moriarty et al., PKCS #1: RSA cryptography specifications Version 2.2, in RFC 8017 (The Internet Engineering Task Force, 2016). https://goo.gl/DWnq9f. Accessed 18 Jan 2018
  62. 62.
    F.J.S. Miravalles, Opera 2: standardization of broadband PLC, in 2007 IEEE International Symposium on Power Line Communications and Its Applications, pp. 11–11 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1109/isplc.2007.371062
  63. 63.
    G. Corral et al., Security in OPERA specification based PLC systems, in 2010 Sixth Advanced International Conference on Telecommunications, pp. 474–478 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1109/aict.2010.26
  64. 64.
    E. Rescorla, Diffie-Hellman key agreement method, in RFC 2631 (The Internet Engineering Task Force, 1999). https://goo.gl/gPPtGo. Accessed 18 Jan 2018
  65. 65.
    S. Kelly, Security implications of using the data encryption standard (DES), in RFC 4772 (The Internet Engineering Task Force, 2006). https://goo.gl/B1DzFc. Accessed 18 Jan 2018
  66. 66.
    National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST). https://goo.gl/3x4xXg. Accessed 18 Jan 2018
  67. 67.
    European Commission (EC)—SMARTGRIDS-ETPS, (2017). https://goo.gl/PavpBe. Accessed 18 Jan 2018
  68. 68.
    European Commission (EC)—OPEN METER (2017). https://goo.gl/w5DVrw. Accessed 18 Jan 2018
  69. 69.
    International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC). https://goo.gl/TxX9x. Accessed 19 Jan 2018
  70. 70.
    Dun and Bradstreet—What is a Dun and Bradstreet D-U-N-S Number? (2017). https://goo.gl/9NKd50. Accessed 19 Jan 2018
  71. 71.
    N. Pavlidou et al., Power line communications: state of the art and future trends. IEEE Commun. Mag. 41(4), 34–40 (2003). https://doi.org/10.1109/mcom.2003.1193972
  72. 72.
    S. Kim et al., A secure smart-metering protocol over power-line communication. IEEE Trans. Power Delivery 26(4), 2370–2379 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1109/TPWRD.2011.2158671CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. 73.
    A. Pittolo, A.M. Tonello, Physical layer security in power line communication networks, in Physical and Data-Link Security Techniques for Future Communication Systems, pp. 125–144 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-23609-4_8
  74. 74.
    A. Pittolo, A.M. Tonello, Physical layer security in power line communication networks: an emerging scenario, other than wireless. IET Commun. 8(8), 1239–1247 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1049/iet-com.2013.0472CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. 75.
    M. Esmalifalak et al., Bad data injection attack and defense in electricity market using game theory study. IEEE Trans. Smart Grid 4(1), 160–169 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1109/TSG.2012.2224391CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. 76.
    S. Dudek, HomePlugAV PLC: practical attacks and backdooring (2014). https://goo.gl/FgTBQJ. Accessed 19 Jan 2018
  77. 77.
    W. Ahn et al., Development of cyber-attack scenarios for nuclear power plants using scenario graphs. Int. J. Distrib. Sens. Netw. 11(9) (2015). https://doi.org/10.1155/2015/836258
  78. 78.
    J.R. Lindsay, Stuxnet and the limits of cyber warfare. Secur. Stud. 22(3), 365–404 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1080/09636412.2013.816122CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. 79.
    J. Loeb, Researchers warn of biggest cyber threat to power grids since Stuxnet (2017). https://goo.gl/FyVhz2. Accessed 18 Jan 2018
  80. 80.
    Texas Instruments—TMDSPLCKIT-V3—C2000 Power Line Modem Developer’s Kit (2017). https://goo.gl/9J8H4u. Accessed 18 Jan 2018
  81. 81.
    Texas Instruments—Developing robust power line communications (PLC) with G3 (2017). https://goo.gl/EkygT1. Accessed 18 Jan 2018
  82. 82.
    A. Sokolov, Java simple serial connector (JSSC) (2017). https://goo.gl/uATJqS. Accessed 18 Jan 2018
  83. 83.
    Texas Instruments—TMDSDC3359—Data Concentrator Evaluation Module (2017). https://goo.gl/skCeRp. Accessed 18 Jan 2018

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Luca Davoli
    • 1
  • Luca Veltri
    • 1
  • Gianluigi Ferrari
    • 1
  • Umberto Amadei
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Engineering and ArchitectureUniversity of ParmaParmaItaly
  2. 2.Tesmec Automation SrlFidenzaItaly

Personalised recommendations