Approach in exploring wireless technology
performance in smart city environments
DaliborDobrilovic*, Milan Malic*, ZeljkoStojanov*, SrdjanSladojevic**
* University of Novi Sad/Technical Faculty, Zrenjanin, Serbia
**
University of Novi Sad/Faculty of Technical Sciences, Novi Sad, Serbia
dalibor.dobrilovic@uns.ac.rs;milanmalic@outlook.com;zeljko.stojanov@uns.ac.rs; sladojevic@uns.ac.rs
Abstract—Considering the rising popularity and rapid
implementation of Smart City environments, evaluation and
testing of wireless technologies performances in those
environments become reasonably important. The
importance increases with the variety of existing, as well as
emerging wireless technologies. Besides well known and
widely used technologies such as: Wi-Fi, ZigBee, 3G/4G/5G;
in recent years new types of technologies have been
targeting the market. Those technologies are LoRa,
LoRaWAN and SigFox, also known as Low Power Wide
Area Network (LPWAN). In this paper an approach in
exploring performances of various newer and older
technologies is presented. In this particular case ZigBee and
LoRa communication modules are tested. The approach is
based on the low-cost and open-source hardware and uses
all its advantages. Besides equipment, research methodology
and field measurements are also presented. The possibility
of comparing field measurement results with the calculated
values obtained from well known outdoor propagation
models is discussed. The accuracy and applicability of
prediction models are also discussed together with the
possibility of tuning those models using field measurements.
I. INTRODUCTION
Considering the rising popularity and rapid
implementation of Smart City environments, evaluation
and testing of wireless technologies performances in those
environments become reasonably important. Besides
evaluation and testing, the possibility to plan and design
new systems is important as well. Consequently,
prediction and accurate calculation of signal strength
become very important.
The importance increases with the variety of existing,
as well as emerging wireless technologies. Besides well
know and widely used technologies such as: Wi-Fi,
ZigBee, 3G/4G/5G, new types of technologies have been
targeting the market in recent years. Those technologies
are LoRa, LoRaWAN and SigFox, also known as Low
Power Wide Area Network (LPWAN). That’s why the use
of highly efficient and extremely modular and adoptable
platform becomes extremely important.
In this paper an approach in exploring performances of
various newer and older technologies is presented. In this
particular case ZigBee and LoRa communication modules
are tested, as well as the open-source base hardware
needed for the design of a test platform. The approach is
based on the low-cost and open-source hardware and uses
all its advantages. Besides equipment, methodologies of
field measurements are also presented. The possibility of
comparing empirical measurements collected using
presented devices with the calculated values obtained
from well known outdoor propagation models is also
discussed.
This paper is organized as follows: After the
introductory section, a variety of propagation models are
discussed as well as the related work in propagation model
application, tuning and comparison. In the initial phase,
three propagation models are indentified as very suitable
for further research. The further research has the goal to
find a mathematical model for as accurate prediction of
wireless smart city technologies performance as possible
in the sense of accurate signal strength prediction in the
first place. Those models should be applicable for
frequencies of 868MHz (LoRa) and 2.4GHz (ZigBee).
Those three models are Okumura-Hata, Stanford
University Interim (SUI) model and Ericsson 9999. In the
following section the measurement devices built around
open-source hardware platforms are presented, as well as
the method of their utilization and obtained results. The
next section gives the results analyses, together with the
comparison of the calculated values with the usage of
presented models.
II. PROPAGATION MODELS
In this section, various propagation loss models
applicable for this research will be presented together
with the related work. Although there is a variety of
propagation models for outdoor environments, such as
free-space (Friis free-space loss equation,), terrain (Egli
model) and vegetation models (Weissberger’s, Early ITU
and Updated ITU vegetation models), urban (COST231-
Hata) and other models [1,2,3,4], only Okumura-Hata,
Stanford University Interim (SUI) and Ericsson 9999 will
be presented here. Those three models are chosen because
in the early stage of this research, and based on
preliminary analyses, it was concluded that they can be
applicable and highly accurate for LoRa (868MHz), and
ZigBee (2,4GHz) propagation prediction.
Variety of related works about testing the usability of
propagation models and their adjustment are made for
outdoor environment, particularly for Okumura-Hata [5,
8], Stanford University Interim (SUI) [6, 7] and Ericsson
9999 model [6, 8]. Authors based their research on
previous experiences. [9]
A. Okumura-Hata model
This propagation prediction model is one of the most
widely used. It also represents the base for development of
many other models. Masaharu Hata modified the basic
Okamura prediction model in order to simplify its
implementation. Formulas developed by Hata are based
on Okumura’s measurements. Okumura collected large
quantity of data in and around Tokio, Japan. Considering
the parameters of propagation path Okumura modelled
propagation losses in urban and sub-urban areas. [1, 2, 3]
The model is completed with the following propagation
environments are: large cities, small/medium cities, sub-
urban, urban and free-space environment. The
propagation loss prediction is given for the distance range
from 0 to 30 km.
Okumura/Hata model - 868 MHz
180

and environment parameters including: 170

 Antenna heights and frequency; 160

 Sub-urban, free-space or hill areas; 150
 Diffraction losses in hilly areas;

Attenuation [dB]
140
 Seaside and lakeside areas etc. 130

Hata defined propagation formulas (1), with the 120

addition of correction parameters. 110
medium/small cities
large cities

𝐿50 (𝑢𝑟𝑏𝑎𝑛) = 69.55 + 26.16 log 𝑓𝑐 − 13.82 log ℎ𝑏 + 100

sub-urban
rural
(44.9 − 6.55 log ℎ𝑏 ) log 𝑑 − 𝑎(ℎ𝑚 )[𝑑𝐵] (1) 90
free space

0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Distance d [km]
The parameters are as follows:
fc - frequency in MHz in range between 150 MHz Fig. 1. Comparison of propagation loss calculation for 868MHz for five
and1,500MHz, different environments
Difference between signal strength in large cities and free space - 868 MHz
hb - effective transmitter antena height in meters, in 50

range between 30m to 200m, 48

hm - effective transmitter antena height in meters, in 46

range between 1m to 10m, 44

d - distance between a trasmitter and a receiver in

Attenuation [dB]

42
km, in range between 1km to 20km 40
a(hm) - correction factor for effective antenna heightas a 38
function of dimension of covered area. 36

Correction factor depends of the environment and for 34

large cities is calculated as follows: 32

𝑎(ℎ𝑚 ) = 8.29 [log(1.54ℎ𝑚 )]2 − 11, 𝑓𝑐 ≤ 300 𝑀𝐻𝑧 (2)

30
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Distance d [km]

Fig. 2. Difference in propagation loss calculation for 868MHz for large

𝑎(ℎ𝑚 ) = 3.2 [log(11.75ℎ𝑚 )]2 − 4.97,
𝑓𝑐 ≥ 300 𝑀𝐻𝑧
Correction factor for small and medium cities:
𝑎(ℎ𝑚 ) = [1.1 log(𝑓𝑐 ) − 0.7]ℎ𝑚 − [1.56𝑙𝑜𝑔(𝑓𝑐 ) − 0.8]
Path loss in sub-urban areas:
𝑓𝑐 2
𝐿50 = 𝐿50 (𝑢𝑟𝑏𝑎𝑛) − 2 (log ( ) ) − 5.4 [𝑑𝐵] (5)
28
And in rural areas:
𝐿50
= 𝐿50 (𝑢𝑟𝑏𝑎𝑛) − 4.78(𝑙𝑜𝑔𝑓𝑐 )2 + 18.33𝑙𝑜𝑔𝑓𝑐
− 40.94 [𝑑𝐵]
Okumura-Hata model presents a great opportunity
when used with LoRa and other sub-Gigahertz
technologies, but cannot be applied to 2,4GHz
technologies such as ZigBee. Okumura-Hata model is
later expanded with the COST-231 model, to be
applicable for frequencies between 1,500MHz to
2,000MHz. It will not be discussed in this paper since the
wireless technologies we are discussing do not operate in
this frequency range.
Calculated values using Okumura-Hata model for
868MHz frequency communication in different
environments are shown in Fig. 1. The five different
cities and free-space
(3)
Using the same Okumura-Hata model for 868MHz the
difference between large cities and free-space
environment propagation loss regarding the distance from
0 to 30 km is given in Fig. 2.
(4)
B. Stanford University Interim (SUI) Model
This propagation model is developed at Stanford
University. After standard developments for frequencies
from 10GHz to 60GHz, working group IEEE 802.16
focused on frequencies from 2GHz to 11GHz. This group
proposed usage of propagation models developed at
Stanford University for design of FWA (Fixed Wireless
(6) Access) systems. This propagation model is known as
SUI (Stanford University Interim) model. The model is
suitable for RF systems using frequencies from 2.5GHz
to 2.7GHz. [1, 6, 7]
The model is divided into three groups, depending on
the terrain:
 Type A – hilly terrain with median and highly
foggy weather,
 Type B – flat terrain, with large areas of high
vegetation or in hilly areas with small areas of high
vegetation and
 Type C – flat terrains with small areas of high
vegetation.*
The model is defined as:
 𝑑 Sub-urban 43,20* 68,93* 12,0 0,1
𝐿 = 𝐴 + 10𝛾𝑙𝑜𝑔10 ( ) + 𝑋𝑓 + 𝑋ℎ + 𝑠 (7)
𝑑0 Rural 45,95 100,6* 12,0 0,1
Where d represents the distance between FWA base
station and user terminal in meters, d0 is the reference * Parameter values for a0 and a1 for sub-urban and rural
distance with value of 100m, s is the parameter with log- areas are based on Least Square (LS) method. [10]
normal distribution for fading modelling caused by
shadows from the trees and cutter effects. Its values are III. METHODOLOGY
from 8.2 dB to 10.6 dB. It can be calculated as: A. LoRa measurements
2 The experiment is performed with the open-source
𝑠 = 0,65 ∙ (𝑙𝑜𝑔(𝑓)) − 1,3 ∙ log(𝑓) + 𝛼 (8)
hardware. Both the transceiver and the receiver are built
Where  has the value 0 dB for rural and sub-urban areas around Arduino MEGA development board, with
- type A and B terrains, and 6.6 dB for urban areas (type Libelium multiprotocol shield and Libelium LoRA
C terrain). SX1272 communication module [11]. LoRa module uses
The rest of the parameters can be calculated like this: 868MHz antenna with 4.5 dBi gain. The platform is
expanded with LCD display in order to show transmission
4𝜋𝑑0 data on the screen. The data consists of the number of
𝐴 = 20 ∙ 𝑙𝑜𝑔10 ( ) (9)
 packets sent, and time in milliseconds from the start of the
𝑐
𝛾 = 𝑎 − 𝑏 ∙ ℎ𝑏𝑠 + (10) transmission. The image of LoRa transmitting station is
ℎ𝑏𝑠
Where hbs is the base station antenna height above terrain given in Fig. 3. The receiving station is similar, with the
difference in using Arduino UNO instead of Arduino
level in meters, between 10m and 80m. Values of
MEGA.
parameters a, b and c are presented in Table 1. Parameter
γ depends on the level of signal attenuation. The scenario for the field measurement is the following.
The transmitting station (Fig. 3) is mobile, and it is used to
TABLE I.
VALUES OF A, B AND C PARAMETERS FOR SUI PROPAGATION MODEL
send around 500 packets from different locations. For this
initial phase of research, six locations are used. The
Model parameter Type A Type B Type C receiver station, based on Arduino UNO is directly
a 4.6 4.0 3.6 attached to a computer via USB cable. The data obtained
b[m-1] 0.0075 0.0065 0.005 during reception of each packet are sent to PC and logged.
c[m] 12.6 17.1 20

Correction factor for used frequency is given as:

𝑓[𝑀𝐻𝑧]
𝑋𝑓 = 6 ∙ 𝑙𝑜𝑔10 ( ) (11)
2000

While the correlation factor for user terminal antenna

height is given as:
ℎ [𝑚]
−10,8 ∙ 𝑙𝑜𝑔10 ( 𝑚𝑠 ) , 𝑧𝑎 𝑡𝑒𝑟𝑒𝑛 𝑡𝑖𝑝𝑎 𝐴 𝑖 𝐵
2000
𝑋ℎ = { ℎ [𝑚]
−20 ∙ 𝑙𝑜𝑔10 ( 𝑚𝑠 ) , 𝑧𝑎 𝑡𝑒𝑟𝑒𝑛 𝑡𝑖𝑝𝑎 𝐶
2000
(12)
Where hms is the user terminal antenna height in meters. Fig. 3. Transmitter LoRa station
SUI model should be used for prediction of propagation
That data contains RSSI (Received Signal Strength
losses in all environments, urban, sub-urban and rural.
Indicator) and SNR (Signal-to-Noise Ratio). In order to
C. Ericsson 9999 Model increase the range of the receiver, Lora communication
Ericsson 9999 model is implementation of Hata model module is attached to an external yagi antenna with 9 dBi
designed in Ericsson. As in the previous models, some gain and 60 radiation angle. The antenna is located
parameters differ depending on the area type. RF signal outdoor, mounted on antenna holder on the 4th floor of a
attenuation is calculated as [1, 6, 8]: residential building. (Fig. 4)

𝑃𝐿[𝑑𝐵] = 𝑎0 + 𝑎1 ∙ 𝑙𝑜𝑔10 (𝑑) + 𝑎2 𝑙𝑜𝑔10 (ℎ𝑏 ) + 𝑎3 ∙

𝑙𝑜𝑔10 (ℎ𝑏 ) ∙ 𝑙𝑜𝑔10 (𝑑) − 3.2 ∙ (𝑙𝑜𝑔10 (11,75 ∙ ℎ𝑚 ))2 +
𝑔(𝑓) (13)
where a0, a1, a2i a3 parameter values are presented in
Table II and g(f) is defined as:
𝑔(𝑓) = 44,49 ∙ log(𝑓) − 4,78(log(𝑓))2 (14)
TABLE II.
PARAMETER VALUES FOR ERICSSON 9999 PROPAGATION MODEL
Area a0 a1 a3 a4
Urban 36,2 30,2 12,0 0,1
 Fig.4. Receiver LoRa station antenna position Loc_13 558 557 99.82 175
Loc_14 560 558 99.64 175
Six locations where the measurements were made are
shown in Fig. 5. The measurements are made in Table V shows values for measured RSSI (Receive
Zrenjanin, a city in northern Serbia. It has around 76,000 Signal Strength Indicator) and SNR (Signal-to-Noise
inhabitants in city area, and covers the area of 1,324.0 Ratio). These values are extracted from the received
km2, with density of population around 93.2/km2. It is packets using Libelium LoRa library for building
situated on mostly flat terrain, in the southern borders of Arduino sketches (programs). Value of RSSI 2 is taken as
the large Pannonian Plain. a reference value for comparison with the model
calculated values.
In the central part of the city, the historical center,
there are mostly two or three-storey buildings, while in TABLE V. RSSI, SNR AND DISTANCE DATA FOR LORA MEASURMENTS
some parts of the city, larger four- and eight-storey RSSI 1 RSSI 2 SNR Dist (m)
buildings are grouped in residential areas. The rest of the Loc_01 -92.96 -113.85 -3.28 1,260
city area is organized in smaller portion in industrial Loc_03 -92.91 -110.39 -1.25 1,938
zones, and in much larger portion in low, maximum two- Loc_05 -93.08 -127.23 -16.23 3,282
Loc_12 -92.77 -126.20 -15.20 4,402
storey residential houses. The city has significant percent Loc_13 -92.91 -119.03 -8.03 4,486
of green areas such as parks and house yard vegetation. Loc_14 -92.84 -120.18 -9.18 5,072
The position of the three measurement locations and
satellite image of part of the city of Zrenjanin relevant for The second platform for the long range ZigBee
this research is shown in Fig. 5. technology for smart city usage is again based upon
Arduino MEGA development board, with the addition of
IO Mega Expansion Shield, LCD shield, Digi
International XBee-PRO Series 2 module with the range
of 1.6 km. The platform is shown in Fig. 6.

Fig. 5. Location of the first three measurements, with angle of receiver

antenna (white marker)

IV. RESULTS
Presentation of the measurement results is given in
three tables. Table III shows basic data about start and
end time of measurements, measurement duration in
seconds and minutes.
TABLE III. MEASURMENTS TIME AND MEASURING DURATION DATA FOR
Fig. 6. Transmitter ZigBee station with the addition of GPS
LORA MEASURMENTS
module for location detection
Start Time End Time Duration (s) Time
Loc_01 16:22:56 16:36:36 820 0:13:40
Six measuring locations are selected with the ZigBee
Loc_03 17:14:02 17:27:09 788 0:11:13 modules: four locations in the wider range of city center
Loc_05 18:08:30 18:22:05 814 0:12:58 and two locations within the city center. Unfortunately, at
Loc_12 13:59:24 13:44:32 892 0:14:52 the time of the experiment only omni-directional 2 dBi
Loc_13 14:43:02 14:28:40 862 0:14:22 and 5 dBi antennas were used on the transmitter and the
Loc_14 15:06:10 14:51:45 865 0:14:25
receiver side. The platform is optimized for giving GPS
Table IV shows the basic data about the number of location of the measurement, and measuring PER values,
packets sent and the number of packets received. From but not for retrieving RSSI values as well (like LoRa
these two values the PER (Packet Error Rate) is platform). The two locations in the city center are shown
calculated. The fourth column represents the height of in Fig. 7.
transmitting station which was mounted during the Since this platform in this phase of research is not
measurement on given height in centimeters. adjusted for retrieving RSSI values, the measurements
cannot be used for comparing these values with the
TABLE IV. NUMBER OF PACKETS, PER AND TRANCIEVER ANTENNA
HEIGHT DATA FOR LORA MEASURMENTS values calculated using the prediction models. Still,
during the measurement, the platform proved to be
Pkts. Sent PktsRcv. PER (%) Height (cm)
efficient and very usable for measuring, and further
Loc_01 530 528 99.44 175
Loc_03 510 510 100.00 175 development directed to enabling RSSI value logging will
Loc_05 527 455 86.34 175 be continued. So, for further research, after adjustment of
Loc_12 577 530 91.85 160
the platform, common propagation loss model supporting -50
2.4 GHz frequencies will be important as well. -60
medium/small cities
large cities
The results of the measurement with ZigBee based sub-urban
-70 rural
platform are published in the [13], with Packet Error measured values

Rate, as the main parameter for evaluating link quality. -80

-90

-100

-110

-120

-130

-140
0 1 2 3 4 5 6

Fig. 8.Okumura-Hata model prediction for 868MHz compared with

LoRa measured results

Fig. 7.Measuring locations in the Zrenjanin city center for
ZigBee modules
V. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Calculations needed for propagation loss are made
according to the formula for received power calculation.
Received power calculation or link budget may be done
with (15) and it is based on the authors’ experience in [9].
The link budget is a tabulation of all gains and losses for
the link added in order to arrive at the mean signal level at
the receiver. [12]
Prx=Ptx+Gtx-Ltx-Lpl-Lm+Grx-Lrx (15)
Where:
Prx is received power (dBm)
Ptx is transmitter output power (dBm)
Gtx is transmitter antenna gain (dBi)
B. Ericsson 9999 model comparison
The second comparison of measured results is made
with Ericsson 9999 model for 868MHz. The prediction is
made for urban, suburban and rural areas. The best fitting
is with the Ericsson 9999 model for urban areas.
Ericsson 9999 model is an extension of Hata model and
it is applicable for 1900MHz, and therefore it should not
be suitable for predicting ZigBee network propagation
(2,400 MHz). Nevertheless, after retrieving RSSI values
for ZigBee network with the previously presented
platform, Ericsson 9999 model should not be left out and
should be compared if not in its original form, than in the
form tuned with the retrieved empirical measurements.
Ericsson 9999 Model -Urban
-20
urban
-40 sub-urban
rural
-60
measured values

-80
Ltx is transmitter losses (coax, connectors...) (dB)
Signal Level [dB]

-100
Lpl is propagation loss or path loss (dB)
-120
Lm is miscellaneous losses (fading margin, body loss,
-140
polarization mismatch, other losses...) (dB)
-160
Grx is receiver antenna gain (dBi)
-180
Lrx is receiver losses (coax, connectors...) (dB)
-200

In the case of using Libelium LoRA 868 MHz module -220

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Ptxis 18 dBm,Gtx is 9 dBi, Grx is 4.5 dBi, Ltx, Lrx and Lm Distance d [km]

are very low and therefore disbanded.
In this section, the Okumura-Hata model accuracy in
predicting LoRa measurement is analyzed first.
A. Okumura-Hata model comparison
Comparison of Okumura-Hata for large and
small/medium cities, as well as suburban and rural areas is
presented in Fig. 8. These results are presented together
with the results obtained from field measurements with
LoRa stations. For Fig. 8 it should be noted that large and
small/medium cities curves are almost identical. The best
fitting using Okumura-Hata model is made with formula
for large and small/medium cities; with exception of
measurements for distances of around 5 km between the
transmitter and the receiver which better fit suburban
areas.
Fig.9. Ericsson 9999 model prediction for 868MHz compared with
LoRa measured results
C. Stanford University Interim (SUI) model comparison
The third comparison is made with Stanford University
Interim (SUI) model. It is shown in Fig. 10.Three terrain
type prediction calculations are used for the comparison,
for terrain types A, B and C.
In all three cases prediction calculations based on the
model are not fitted well with measured LoRa values. So,
in this case, SUI model showed itself inapplicable. SUI
model should not be excluded from future work, due to
the fact that it is designed to be used up to and above 2.4
GHz as well. Its future usage should include model
adjustment as well.
 Stanford University Interim (SUI) Model - Terrein A, B, C of10th Advanced International Conference on
0
Terrein A
Telecommunications AICT2014, July 20 - 24, Paris, France, 2014.
-20
Terrein B [6] J. Milanovic, S. Rimac-Drlje and K. Bejuk, “Comparison of
Terrein C
Measured values
Propagation Model Accuracy for WiMAX on 3.5GHz”, 14th IEEE
-40 International Conference on Electronic Circuits and Systems,
Morocco, (2007), pp. 111-114. 2007.
Signal level [dB]

-60 [7] B. C. Jakovljević, Analiza metoda predikcije nivoa električnog

polja i njihova primena u WiMAX sistemima (in Serbian), 14.
-80 Telekomunikacioni forum TELFOR 2006, 21.-23. novembar,
Srbija, Beograd, 2006.
-100
[8] Chandan Kumar Jha, Reshu Jain, Literature Survey on Various
-120
Outdoor Propagation Model for Fixed Wireless Network,
International Journal of Science and Research (IJSR), Vol. 3 Issue
-140
8, August 2014.
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Distance d [km] [9] Dalibor Dobrilovic, Borislav Odadzic and ZeljkoS tojanov, Site-
general indoor loss propagation model adjustment for 868 MHz
Fig.10. Stanford University Interim (SUI) model prediction for 868MHz
RF modules, SCIENTIFIC BULLETIN of The Politehnica
compared with LoRa measured results
University of Timişoara, Transactions on AUTOMATIC
CONTROL and COMPUTER SCIENCE, Volume 61(75), Issue 1,
VI. CONCLUSION 2016, ISSN 1224-600X, pp. 65-72.
In this paper the approach in evaluation of various [10] Simic I. lgor, Stanic I., and Zrnic B., “Minimax LS Algorithm for
wireless technology performances for usage in smart city Automatic Propagation Model Tuning,” Proceeding of the 9th
scenarios is presented. The paper presents the test Telecommunications Forum (TELFOR 2001), Belgrade, Serbia,
2001.
platform based on open-source hardware, and analyses
[11] Waspmote-LoRa-868MHz_915MHz-SX1272 Networking Guide,
usability of three outdoor propagation loss calculation Document Version: v7.0 - 02/2017, ©Libelium Comunicaciones
models: Okumura-Hata, Stanford University Interim Distribuidas S.L., http://www.libelium.com/development/
(SUI) and Ericsson 9999. In this phase of research, two waspmote/documentation/waspmote-lora-868mhz-915mhz-
platforms are designed for testing LoRa (868 MHz) and sx1272-networking-guide/ (Retrieved 2017)
ZigBee (2.4GHz) communication. Only the first platform [12] Harry R. Anderson, Fixed broadband wireless system design, John
measurements are used for comparison with the Wiley & Sons Ltd, Chichester, UK, 2003.
propagation loss model prediction. [13] Dalibor Dobrilović, Borislav Odadžić, Milan Malić, Upotreba
open-source hardvera i single-board računara u razvoju prototip
The comparison shows that Okumura-Hata (for large sistema za pametne gradove, XXXIV simpozijum o novim
and small and medium cities) and Ericsson (for urban tehnologijama u poštanskom i telekomunikacionom saobraćaju (in
areas) fit very well with the measured results. Stanford Serbian), Novmber 29-30, Belgrade, Serbia, 2016.
University (SUI) model does not fit at all. However, [14] XBee/XBee-PRO ZigBee RF Modules User Guide, Digi
because of its applicability for 2.4 GHz, its adjusted International, 2016. http://www.digi.com/resources/
version should be analyzed in the future. documentation/digidocs/PDFs/90000976.pdf (Retrieved February
2017)
The future work will be directed in four main
directions. One is further design of the platform with long
range ZigBee modules, with the ability to measure RSSI
values. The second direction will be adjustment of SUI
model for use with existing 868MHz results and future 2.4
GHz results. The third direction will be search for and
evaluation and analyses of other potentially suitable
models for propagation loss prediction. Finally, possible
introduction of other wireless technologies, besides LoRa
and ZigBee will be considered as well.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
This research is supported by Ministry of Education and
Science of the Republic of Serbia under the project
number TR32044 “The development of software tools for
business process analysis and improvement”, 2011-2017.
REFERENCES
[1] Theodore S. Rappaport, Wireless Communications: Principles and
Practice (2nd Edition), Pearson Education, 2002.
[2] John S. Seybold, Introduction to RF propagation, John Wiley &
Sons, Inc., New Jersey, USA, 2005.
[3] J. D. Parsons, Mobile Radio Propagation Channel, John Wiley &
Sons Ltd., 2ed, New York, USA, 2000.
[4] Dharma Prakash Agrawal, Qing-An Zeng, Introduction to
Wireless and Mobile Systems, 3ed, Cengage Learning, Stamford,
USA, 2011.
[5] Robson D. A. Timoteo, Daniel C. Cunha, George D. C.
Cavalcanti, A Proposal for Path Loss Prediction in Urban
Environments using Support Vector Regression, in Proceedings