Architecting Wireless Field AreA netWorks

Making the right choices

strategic White PaPer

tAble oF contents
introduction: Field area networks in the smart grid architecting a multi-purpose network technology choices
/ / /

Wireline network options / 3 Wireless network architecture options / 4

spectrum

Licensed spectrum / 5 Unlicensed spectrum / 6 Lightly licensed spectrum / 6

Wireless topology choices

PMP topology / 7 rF mesh topology / 8 Directional mesh topology / 9 hybrid mesh topology / 9

Wireless technology choices

Lte / 10 WiMaX / 11

10

choosing the right product conclusion

/

11

12
/

about the author

12

introduction: Field AreA netWorks in the smArt grid

Communications network deployments in electric utilities have traditionally focused on supporting the transmission grid. These wide area network (WAN) deployments provide real-time visibility to support applications, such as teleprotection, to maintain grid reliability. In contrast, beyond a few supervisory control and data acquisition (SCADA) links or connectivity systems for larger substations, the distribution grid has been largely devoid of communications network connectivity. This approach is changing dramatically as utilities adopted smart grid applications such as Distribution Automation (DA), Advanced Metering Infrastructure (AMI) and Distributed Generation (DG). Now, the distribution grid requires virtually the same level of visibility and control as the transmission grid. This has created the need to extend the WAN into the middle mile to create a Field Area Network (FAN) capable of supporting many smart grid applications. The advent of new smart grid applications, such as DA and DG, has made it even more important to have a reliable FAN that can provide last mile connectivity. With the exception of AMI, these new applications have stringent network requirements that call for low latency and high availability. Moreover, the need to support additional applications such as syncrophasors, video camera backhaul and substation automation has made the building of private multi-purpose networks to support this full range of utility applications economically attractive. In addition, private networks also provide utilities with better control and flexibility over the middle mile network. This increases their ability to meet the rapidly changing needs of smart grid applications.
Figure 1. Dynamic communications architecture for the smart grid

architecting Wireless Field area networks

AlcAtel-lucent White pAper

Architecting A multi-purpose netWork

Careful analysis of requirements is essential to building a common FAN that can support all smart grid applications. The first step is to identify the network requirements for each application, as shown in Table 1. These requirements may include throughput, latency, availability and security. The next step is to develop a common set of network requirements that can support all applications. These requirements should give the network the flexibility to scale and adapt to accommodate future applications. During analysis, compromises may need to be made to ensure that network costs can remain viable. In evaluating the business case, however, it is important to consider the intangible benefits that a private FAN can bring.
table 1. network requirements for different applications dAtA rAte/ dAtA Volume (at enDPoint) Low/very low Medium/low Medium/low Low/low Low Medium/low high/medium high/medium Medium/low Low/very low lAtencY AlloWAnce (one WaY) high Low Low Low Very low Low Medium Medium Medium Low

ApplicAtion smart metering scaDa operations data Distribution automation Distributed generation Distributed energy management and control Video surveillance Mobile workforce connectivity corporate data corporate voice

reliAbilitY Medium high high high high high high high Medium high

securitY high high high high high high high high Medium Medium

As shown in Figure 2, a FAN has four basic building blocks: The physical medium (wireless or wireline), the network topology, the network technology and the product platform. Multiple options are available for each of these building blocks. Utilities need to make the right choices for each building block to create the optimal FAN architecture. To make the right choices, it is essential to compare the benefits and drawbacks of each option. Ideally, these choices will be made based on a thorough understanding of the utilitys existing WAN footprint and infrastructure assets. It is also important to understand the utilitys preferences relative to various network parameters and risk tolerance levels.
Figure 2. Building blocks of a middle mile solution

TOPOLOGY

TECHNOLOGY

SPECTRUM

PRODUCT

architecting Wireless Field area networks

AlcAtel-lucent White pAper

technologY choices
Wireline network options
Although this paper is about architecting wireless networks, wireline networks are frequently considered as valid alternatives. This section looks briefly at the wireline technology choices. Power line carrier (PLC) technologies are commonly used to support wireline networks. Their use has been widespread in utilities for decades in transmission grids, although of limited applicability and in recent years in distribution grids to support basic Automatic Meter Reading (AMR) applications. This is changing. Recent PLC technologies have evolved to the point where they can support full AMI applications, particularly in European or Asian distribution networks, where the transformer-to-meter ratio is considerably higher than that used in North America.
Figure 3. Media and topology selection

WIRELESS OPTIONS

WIRELINE OPTIONS

ONT

ONT

ONT Point to multi-point WiMAX/LTE FTTU: Fiber to the User

PLC OVER DISTRIBUTION GRID

Mesh deployment Wi-Fi

PLC: Power line carrier

PLC networks have a number of downsides that must be considered: Traditionally, they are not reliable across transformers, although the G3 implementation appears to have overcome this barrier, and they tend to limit throughput, which reduces its ability to support multiple applications. Because they use the power lines, physical outages will affect power and communications alike.

architecting Wireless Field area networks

AlcAtel-lucent White pAper

Fiber optic networks are another approach to wireline-based communications. In this approach, a fiber communications network overlays the distribution grid. Fiber networks provide virtually unlimited capacity and the best possible latency. They also ensure network availability. This approach has been successfully adopted by several Utility-Telcos (U-Telcos) or utilities that also provide other services, such as telephone, cable TV and Internet or triple play, to domestic and industrial customers (known as Fiber to the User (FTTU)). However, the approach can be very expensive, making it difficult to economically justify solely for the smart grid.

Wireless network architecture options

A broad array of technologies can be used to support wireless FANs. These include the traditional narrowband radios used in utilities, which can operate in the licensed or unlicensed spectrum, as well as broadband wireless technologies such as Worldwide Interoperability for Microwave Access (WiMAX) and Long Term Evolution (LTE). Narrowband radio vendors serve utilities and mission-critical applications for transportation, industrial, public safety and military organizations. However, most of their solutions offer network capacities barely sufficient to support one application, making the narrowband radio technologies inadequate for supporting a multi-purpose network. By contrast, many broadband network solutions built for the consumer market are available to utilities. These solutions can be ideal candidates for building multi-purpose smart grid FANs. Unlike narrowband radio solutions, these broadband solutions are standardsbased platforms. As such, they provide a greater choice of vendors to utilities and ensure long-term support for the network. In addition, commercial pressures from across a wider user base mean that vendors continuously evolve and improve the performance of these networks. This evolution helps utilities keep pace with security threats and protect their FAN operations.
Figure 4. Solution selection and deployment

TECHNOLOGY SELECTION

PRODUCT SELECTION

NEEDS ASSESSMENT

NETWORK DESIGN

PROJECT MANAGEMENT OPERATE, ADMINISTER AND MANAGE SITE CONSTRUCTION

NETWORK DEPLOYMENT

DETAILED ENGINEERING

architecting Wireless Field area networks

AlcAtel-lucent White pAper

In considering the choice of technology, each may only support a certain set of topology configurations and may only be available in a select frequency spectrum. Each utility needs to match its choice of technology, spectrum and topology with a broad range of elements, including network requirements, terrain and available mounting infrastructure. Interdependencies between the various options and choices can make this process a challenge. One possible approach is to adopt an iterative process, in which unsuitable spectrum and technology choices are eliminated to develop a short list of viable options. These options must be compared to finalize the solution. During this process, it is important to consider the available product platforms and choose accordingly.

spectrum
licensed spectrum
Ideally, utilities should implement network solutions using a spectrum for which they have a license for exclusive use. This eliminates any possibility of interference from other users. It also typically provides large coverage areas, as the radiation of higher radio frequency (RF) power levels is allowed by the regulator in the licensed spectrum. For example, Industry Canada, the spectrum regulator in Canada, has set aside 30 MHz of spectrum for exclusive use by utilities, making it easy for Canadian utilities to deploy FANs. This is not the case in most other countries. There is, of course, the option of acquiring licensed spectrum through auctions or sublease; however, there would be a cost associated with this. More attractive spectrum, such as the lower spectrum frequencies, offer better propagation and penetration characteristics and come at a higher cost; more densely populated areas of operation mean higher spectrum prices. And some of the spectrum that is easily available may come with other challenges, such as stringent out-of-band emission (OOBE) requirements or Effective Isotropic Radiated Power (EIRP) limitations. There could also be issues created by interference from emitters in adjacent bands. Less popular spectrum may have stipulations relative to substantial use clauses. For example, spectrum holders may be required to complete network deployment to serve a certain portion of the population in the Major Economic Areas (MEAs) for which the spectrum is licensed. This could be of particular concern for a utility that is subleasing a portion of the spectrum from a spectrum holder. If the spectrum holder fails to meet the substantial use requirements, its entire spectrum holding may be at risk, including the portion subleased by the utility. On top of all this, the availability of the spectrum itself may sometimes be limited, making it unviable to deploy a solution in the licensed spectrum. Often, these circumstances force a utility to look at unlicensed spectrum for deploying FANs.

architecting Wireless Field area networks

AlcAtel-lucent White pAper

table 2. technology and spectrum options in north America tYpes oF spectrum 200 Mhz 900 Mhz 700 Mhz 900 Mhz 1.4 Mhz 1.8 ghz 2.1 ghz aWs 2.3 ghz Wcs 2.4 ghz 2.5 ghz 3.65 ghz 4.9 ghz 5.x ghz Licensed Licensed Unlicensed Licensed Licensed Licensed Unlicensed Licensed Quasi-licensed Quasi-licensed public safety Unlicensed Wi-Fi pre-WimAX WimAX 16d WimAX 16e lte

unlicensed spectrum
In unlicensed spectrum utilities have no exclusivity and have to coexist with other spectrum users. Depending on the location of the network, the spectrum could be highly congested, making it difficult to deploy a reliable FAN. The best way to determine the usability of a spectrum is to analyze the frequency for the deployment territory and gather information regarding other existing users, such as the frequency channels they use, their RF emission power levels, and the locations of their RF emitters. This data can help utilities evaluate the risks of deploying a mission-critical network in the spectrum. It can also help them engineer the new network to minimize interference from the existing network. It cannot, however, guard against potential interference from future users of the spectrum. Other considerations can be taken into account during engineering to protect the network against possible interference from other users. For example, point-to-point links, which have narrower antenna beam width, can help reduce the probability of interference. Choosing less polluted spectrum, such as 5.2 GHz or 5.4 GHz could offer improvement over the more congested 5.8 GHz spectrum, although typically, this has other constraints such as EIRP and needing products with features such as Dynamic Frequency Selection (DFS). Certain unlicensed spectrum, such as 900 MHz, 2.4 GHz and 5.8 GHz, is also used by consumer devices, including cordless phones and baby monitors. These devices typically use relatively small EIRP. The possibility of interference from these devices is negligible.

lightly licensed spectrum

In some markets, utilities may have access to lightly licensed spectrum that may provide advantages over the unlicensed spectrum. Operation in these spectrum bands is on a non-exclusive basis, still raising the possibility of interference and the need to coordinate with other spectrum users.

architecting Wireless Field area networks

AlcAtel-lucent White pAper

Considering the cost and complexity of licensed spectrum and the limitations of unlicensed spectrum, lightly licensed bands could offer a good compromise for utilities seeking to deploy FANs. However, if the expectation is that the users are to work together to coordinate frequency use, a utility would also have to coordinate frequency use with future users of the spectrum. An example of lightly licensed spectrum would be the 3.65 GHz band in North America. This band is expected to remain sparsely used compared to the unlicensed spectrum. The spectrum has two blocks, the lower block from 3650 MHz to 3675 MHz and the upper block from 3675 MHz to 3700 MHz. As of now, most of the deployments have been in the lower 3.65 GHz block, leaving room in the upper block for newer users.

Wireless topologY choices

Wireless technologies have evolved over time and now provide topology choices that support the building of cost-effective connectivity. Traditionally, wireless connectivity has been categorized as either point to point (PTP) or point to multi-point (PMP). In PTP networks, the network could be linear and hierarchical or rings formed by PTP links. Ring protection was typically provided by an underlying synchronous optical networking (SONET) and synchronous digital hierarchy (SDH) network layer or an Ethernet and Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) network. In PMP networks, one radio, typically called a base station (BS) or access point (AP) radio, would simultaneously handle multiple links to endpoint radios called Customer Premises Equipment (CPE) or Subscriber Modules (SMs). The base stations would act as gateways and aggregation points, and would then be connected to a backhaul network. This network could be another wireless network, typically a PTP ring or mesh network.

pmp topology
PMP networks can be built with omnidirectional base stations, where a base station connected to an omnidirectional antenna enables connectivity to CPE all around the base station site. A more popular architecture is to use sectorized base station sites, where three or four base stations are equipped with directional antennas that have an azimuth beam width of 120 degrees or 90 degrees. This architecture increases base station capacity in terms of aggregate throughput as well as the amount of CPE it can support simultaneously. It also increases coverage radius, as the directional antennas will help the RF signal reach farther. This increased reach helps the base station make more efficient use of site infrastructure costs (cellphone networks are examples of PMP networks). This topology, supported by WiMAX technology, has also been a very popular choice for FANs operated by utilities in North America and Australia. Unless redundancy is built in, the base station in a PMP network becomes a single point of failure. A base station failure could lead to loss of network connectivity to all the attached CPE. To increase resiliency, network owners can build redundant base stations. They can also build the network with overlapping base station coverage, so that each CPE has the option of connecting to multiple base stations. This mesh network architecture has built-in resiliency, increasing network survivability.

architecting Wireless Field area networks

AlcAtel-lucent White pAper

Figure 5. Sectorized base station configuration for PMP network

DA

DA

AMR AMI Video

DG LMR SCADA

Base station

FIBER/MICROWAVE WIDE AREA NETWORK

rF mesh topology
An alternate topology approach would be to use RF mesh. RF mesh has gained widespread acceptance among utilities recently. Acceptance is greatest in North America, where the RF mesh is widely used for AMI networks in the last mile. Most RF mesh AMI networks have been based on proprietary technology in unlicensed spectrum. However, there have been instances of choosing standards-based technologies such as ZigBee for AMI and Wi-Fi for FANs. The built-in resiliency provided by mesh topology makes it an attractive choice for FAN deployments. Each mesh network node is capable of establishing multiple network connections, enabling the construction of a resilient network that is survivable in case of a node or link failure. If a failure occurs, the mesh chooses the best connection based on a combination of factors, including signal strength and congestion in the link. It can dynamically switch connections to find the most efficient route. The need for dynamic switching calls for overlapping coverage between mesh nodes, which significantly increases the overall cost of network. This increase is created by the need for additional equipment as well as higher site infrastructure costs. With their advanced feature sets and capabilities, mesh nodes tend to be more expensive than the CPE typically used in PMP networks. As the number of endpoints increases, so do network costs.

architecting Wireless Field area networks

AlcAtel-lucent White pAper

directional mesh topology

Mesh technology for FANs is typically available in the unlicensed spectrum, making it highly prone to interference. The use of omnidirectional antennas compounds this issue: An interference source anywhere in the 360-degree coverage area could obstruct the mesh network. One strategy for minimizing interference is to reduce the number of mesh nodes; for example, by deploying directional antennas or sectorizing the site in the manner used for PMP networks. Instead of deploying one radio that uses an omnidirectional antenna to connect to multiple neighboring nodes, multiple radios can be housed together to form a single mesh node. Each radio can be connected to a directional antenna to improve the nodes range and tolerance to interference. With this approach, the mesh can be deliberately designed with the antennas pointing and connecting to adjacent nodes. This strategy increases costs because it increases the number of radios in a given node. At the same time, it reduces overall site count, which helps optimize site infrastructure costs.
Figure 6. RF mesh network

RTU

RTU

RTU

RTU

RTU

RTU

RTU

FIBER/MICROWAVE WIDE AREA NETWORK

hybrid mesh topology

Mesh networks increase the need for mounting infrastructure because their directional antennas take up more space than individual omnidirectional antennas. This need for space compromises the flexibility that regular mesh networks offer through their ability to establish connectivity to any other mesh node within a given coverage area. However, the directional mesh approach provides more reliable and cost-effective connectivity, making it a better choice for utility field area networks compared to regular mesh networks. Yet another approach, promoted by certain vendors, is the hybrid mesh, where omnidirectional antennas are sectorized to obtain directionality and provide more tolerance to interference. This sectorization is achieved with one radio, which switches between different antennas in sequence and at a very high rate thousands of connections per second. This reduces the cost of radio and lowers real estate requirements, and it also optimizes the number of sites required to support the network and minimizes the

architecting Wireless Field area networks

AlcAtel-lucent White pAper

probability of interference. Regulators typically permit higher EIRP for directional antennas compared to omnidirectional antennas. Directional and hybrid mesh networks can leverage the higher EIRP allowance to increase range and minimize interference. Each approach has its own advantages and disadvantages relative to network costs, resiliency, reliability, and network operations. Each also has implications relative to which technology, for example, Wi-Fi or WiMAX, is available in each topology. A thorough analysis covering factors such as requirements, the geographical spread of sites needing connectivity, future growth plans, and the pollution level in the spectrum should be completed prior to selecting the appropriate topology for a FAN.

Wireless technologY choices

Wireless technologies offer a wide range of choices, including proprietary and standardsbased technologies such as Wi-Fi, WiMAX, and LTE. The choice of technology must be made in conjunction with choices relating to spectrum and topology. For example, WiMAX and LTE networks can only be implemented as PMP networks, as these technologies do not support mesh deployments as of now. Wi-Fi, on the other hand, can be deployed in PMP or mesh topologies, making it a more flexible choice. But Wi-Fi is mainly available in unlicensed spectrum, which introduces problems such as congestion, potential interference and compromised availability and latency. If the lightly licensed 3.65 GHz spectrum is chosen in North America, only WiMAX-based technologies are available. The licensed spectrum typically offers more options, including LTE, WiMAX, and older technologies such as Data Over Cable Service Interface Specification (DOCSIS).

lte
LTE is arguably the best technology for PMP networks: Major service providers are choosing LTE as the industry technology standard for the near future. Despite its popularity, availability of LTE is currently limited to 3rd Generation Partnership Project (3GPP) band classes, which are primarily licensed to service providers. These spectrum blocks are highly sought after, and service providers have paid hefty licensing fees to acquire them. As a result, it is unlikely that a utility would be able to acquire a spectrum supported by LTE products. This scenario could change as LTE products based on software-defined radio (SDR), which offers better spectrum flexibility, come to market. This could make it easier to have LTE available in spectrum beyond 3GPP band classes. In the United States, LTE is also available in spectrum blocks dedicated to public safety use. Many public safety entities have expressed interested in deploying shared networks with utilities to subsidize the cost of network build-out. In February 2012, the United States Congress authorized the First Responder Network Authority (FRNA or FirstNet) which has the statutory mandate to build a financially self-sustaining network through: Public safety and secondary user fees (to cover operations costs) Partnerships to share infrastructure with third parties (e.g. utilities and other communications infrastructure owners) These partnerships may include: Network capacity leasing (e.g. spectrum, backbone, backhaul, etc.) Infrastructure sharing, including real property, eNodeBs, cores, etc. Purchasing of network services from third parties by FirstNet

architecting Wireless Field area networks

AlcAtel-lucent White pAper

10

This is a unique opportunity for utilities to obtain a very attractive spectrum for deploying FANs, without incurring the very high cost of obtaining spectrum through a spectrum auction. While, as of this writing, the FirstNet governance model and interoperability requirements have yet to be determined, there is significant opportunity and incentive for utilities to work with public safety organizations to determine how to deploy a shared infrastructure and partition it for mixed use.

WimAX
As the WiMAX standards were being developed, several vendors built products with proprietary implementations of WiMAX. Many of these products are widely deployed and have several advantages over the standards-based products, such as lower latency and flexibility relative to topology. These proprietary implementations are widely classified as pre-WiMAX technology and are still the preferred technology for low latency applications such as transfer trip function for Distributed Generation application. The WiMAX IEEE 802.16d-2004 standard was developed for fixed applications and would suffice for most grid applications. The WiMAX IEEE 802.16e-2005 technology standard was originally developed for mobility applications but has some features, such as multiple-input multiple-output (MIMO), that could offer advantages to fixed wireless applications. Increasingly, WiMAX 16e is being chosen over 16d, and so product availability in 16d is expected to shrink dramatically in the coming years. WiMAX 16m, the new WiMAX standard, is backward compatible with WiMAX 16e, reducing the risk of obsolescence for WiMAX 16e and easing migration to the newer technology, if the need arises. If there are applications (for example, workforce mobility applications) that require a truly mobile wireless connection, it is important to use a WiMAX 16e- or LTE-based solution in a licensed spectrum. Today most WiMAX 16e platforms offer the flexibility to deploy in a standalone configuration without an Access Service Network (ASN) gateway, reducing complexity and cost. However, this will not support mobility applications. A mobile network can be built by choosing a licensed spectrum, adding an ASN gateway for standalone WiMAX networks, and keeping the rest of the building blocks essentially the same. Depending on the spectrum chosen, LTE or WiMAX can be used as the technology of choice. Compared to a fixed network, a mobile network will require a higher number of base stations for the same service territory.

choosing the right product

Once a technology is chosen, it is important to pick the right product line. Even though many of the products are standards based, there can be distinct differences between products from different vendors. These differences can be due to the implementation of optional features or because unique features that are of particular interest to utilities have been added by certain vendors. Some features, such as redundancy and supported packet sizes, can be of significance to utilities. In addition, some vendors are more focused on compliance with utility standards such as the International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC) 61850 standard or the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers IEEE 1613 standard. It is important to remember that equipment vendors are continuously making changes to their products, adding new features that are important to utilities. To make the right product selection, utilities must remain informed of the latest developments of each vendors product portfolio.

architecting Wireless Field area networks

AlcAtel-lucent White pAper

11

Beyond making the right choices for each building block, it is important to engineer the network properly to ensure that all network objectives are met. In addition, proper integration of the FAN with adjacent layers such as the Wide Area Network and Neighborhood Area Networks (NANs) is critical to ensure that end-to-end performance objectives are achieved. It is also important to map the quality of service (QoS) parameters from the field area network to the neighboring network layers to ensure that the network objectives throughput, latency for each application are realized.

conclusion
As electric utilities turn their attention to new smart grid applications, it is becoming increasingly important for them to support these applications with Field Area Networks. These FANs must successfully bridge the gap between existing Wide Area Networks and the Neighborhood Area Networks in the last mile. Utilities face many choices as they architect these new networks. These choices cover all of the key network building blocks, from physical medium (wireless or wireline) and topology to network technologies and product platforms. In each of these key areas, it is essential for utilities to analyze a broad range of factors, including network and application requirements, architecture options, available spectrum and operational costs. The knowledge gained from this analysis can help utilities carefully architect and engineer Field Area Networks that are tightly integrated with the rest of the network. By adding FAN capabilities, utilities can build multi-purpose networks capable of supporting a full range of smart grid applications. These networks can give utilities better control and flexibility within the network and help reduce their operating costs. The result can be an ideal platform for meeting the rapidly changing needs of smart grid applications. Throughout its history, Alcatel-Lucent has played a leading role in building and transforming the worlds communications networks. Its knowledge and expertise can bring valuable support to the power industry while it makes the shift toward smart grids.

About the Author

Cherian Abraham Cherian Abraham is a Principal Architect with the Energy Systems Integration Division (E-SID) of Alcatel-Lucent. As part of the technology strategy team at E-SID, Cherian is responsible for developing and managing Field Area Network Solutions for Energy utility customers globally. Cherian played a lead role in creating an ecosystem of technology partners, enabling Alcatel-Lucent to provide its customers unmatched flexibility in terms of technology and vendor choices. Cherians focus on creating vendor agnostic solutions has helped Alcatel-Lucent become the leading network integrator for Field Area Networks amongst North American Utilities. Cherian has 20 years of experience in architecting, deploying and managing mission critical, enterprise and service provider networks globally.

architecting Wireless Field area networks

AlcAtel-lucent White pAper

12

www.alcatel-lucent.com alcatel, Lucent, alcatel-Lucent and the alcatel-Lucent logo are trademarks of
alcatel-Lucent. all other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. the information presented is subject to change without notice. alcatel-Lucent assumes no responsibility for inaccuracies contained herein. copyright 2012 alcatel-Lucent. all rights reserved. M2012011651 (March)