This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been
fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI
10.1109/COMST.2015.2429311, IEEE Communications Surveys & Tutorials
Outdoor Long-range WLANs:
A Lesson for IEEE 802.11ah
Stefan Aust, Member, IEEE, R. Venkatesha Prasad, Senior Member, IEEE, and Ignas G. M. M. Niemegeers
Abstract—Several service applications have been reported by
many, who proposed the use of wireless LANs (WLANs) over a
wide variety of outdoor deployments. In particular, the upcoming
IEEE 802.11ah WLAN protocol will enable a longer transmission
range between WLAN access points (APs) and stations (STAs)
up to multiple kilometers using carrier frequencies at 900 MHz.
However, limitations of WLAN outdoor installations have been
found of the plethora of WLAN protocols in experimental
studies. This article summarizes the challenges and provides
a comprehensive overview of suggested improvements. As the
standardization of the IEEE 802.11ah is reaching its final stage,
important protocol aspects as well as new features are to be
outlined. Interference problems and issues with the WLAN
configuration, the physical layer (PHY), and media access con-
trol (MAC) are of paramount importance in outdoor WLAN
networks; thus, are discussed in detail. Further, we examine the
reported upper boundaries in throughput and link reliability
of long-range WLANs in different environments, including sea-
surfaces, unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) and tunnels. At the
end of this study, we reflect on the major issues regarding sub-
1 GHz (S1G) WLANs and propose avenues for further research.
Index Terms—WLAN, IEEE 802.11ah, wireless sensor, sub-
1 GHz, long-range, outdoor.
I. I NTRODUCTION
Wireless communication in the license-exempt radio-bands
has become an attractive communication method because
of its low cost and widespread access. It is intuitive to
adapt the wireless LAN (WLAN) technology for remote
sensing services as an alternative access method, e.g., to
connect meter devices in outdoor utility infrastructures [1].
Other services include health care and non-intrusive remote
sensing in outdoor activities. The upcoming IEEE 802.11ah
WLAN protocol amendment is a potential candidate to en-
able outdoor long-range WLANs, which operate at the sub-
1 GHz (S1G) industrial, scientific and medical (ISM) radio-
band [2]. Using WLANs in outdoor locations is from vital
importance, but fundamental limitations of the usability of
legacy WLANs have been reported in the scientific literature.
First and foremost, common WLAN path loss models have
been solely examined for indoor environments to enable ultra-
high speed Internet access at large channel bandwidth. In
contrast, outdoor path loss characterization has received less
Manuscript submitted July 8, 2014. Revised and resubmitted September 27,
2014. Accepted April 5, 2015.
S. Aust is with NEC Communication Systems, Ltd., Kawasaki, Japan (e-
mail: stefanaust@ieee.org).
R. Venkatesha Prasad and Ignas G. M. M. Niemegeers are with
the faculty of EEMCS, Delft University of Technology, P.O. Box
5031, 2600 GA Delft, The Netherlands (e-mail: rvprasad@ieee.org;
I.G.M.M.Niemegeers@tudelft.nl).
1553-877X (c) 2015 IEEE. Personal use is permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission. See
http://www.ieee.org/publications_standards/publications/rights/index.html for more information.
1
attention in WLANs [3]–[6]. The use of a WLAN in outdoor
environments is heavily affected by the surrounding WLANs
and ambient noise; thus, interference has a major impact on
the transmission performance. In this article, a special focus
is made on the IEEE 802.11ah standard, which envisions a
long-range WLAN network at 900 MHz serving high density
WLAN stations (WLAN STAs) [7]. Further, the antenna
setup in outdoor WLANs is of paramount importance. Omni-
directional and directional beam antennae behave differently
and therefore require different physical layer (PHY) and media
access control (MAC) operations. Indoor path loss models
are no longer valid and PHY operations must be modified.
Additionally, the required MAC enhancements must consider
network densification. It is imperative that network designers
require solid information about potential threats in upcom-
ing IEEE 802.11ah WLAN deployments, including coverage
range, throughput boundaries, and channel characteristics.
Similar surveys highlighted on limited problems in legacy
WLANs only, such as radio propagation in tunnels [8],
throughput capacity [9], MAC design in WLAN ad-hoc net-
works [10], and coexistence among IEEE 802.11 and IEEE
802.15 wireless networks [11]. In contrast, this survey con-
tributes a holistic view on the reported challenges on outdoor
long-range WLANs in the scientific literature over the period
2002 to 2014. This article presents an overview of the ex-
perimental and theoretical deployment of long-range WLANs.
In particular, the survey is focused on the upcoming standard
802.11ah and how the new WLAN protocol amendment must
tackle some of those challenges, e.g., at different layers
in all existing WLAN standards. Then, the authors explain
the challenges of long-range WLAN, which is followed by
long-range WLANs in exposed areas such as sea-surfaces,
unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs), and tunnels. At the end,
further research topics were identified.
This article is organized as follows: The IEEE 802.11ah
WLAN protocol is introduced in Section II. Use case models
of long-range WLANs are presented in Section III. Outdoor
deployment challenges of long-range WLANs are presented
in Section IV. Long-range WLANs in exposed areas are of
interest in Section V; in particular, the focus is on long-range
WLANs over the sea-surface and in 3D-networks. The lessons
learned are discussed in Section VI, which is followed by
a list of future research challenges in Section VII. Finally,
concluding remarks are given in Section VIII.
II. T HE IEEE 802.11 AH WLAN PROTOCOL
The IEEE 802.11ah amendment aims to define an extended
orthogonal frequency division multiplexing (OFDM) PHY
This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI
10.1109/COMST.2015.2429311, IEEE Communications Surveys & Tutorials
2

operation that allows for the use of the sub-1 GHz license- sensor backhaul, and (iii) WLAN coverage extension and
exempt ISM-bands, which are available for radio transmission off-loading [20]. Sensor networks represent the use of IEEE
in some areas, including China, Europe, Japan, Singapore, 802.11ah WLAN in areas such as metering, hospital, and
South Korea, and the USA [12], [13]. Table I lists the IEEE environmental measurements. The number of nodes varies
802.11ah target frequency spectrum and the maximum emitted from 10 to 100. Sensor backhaul represents the data collection
radiated power (e.r.p.) and channel bandwidth (CBW) [2]. The and aggregation of multiple IEEE 802.11ah nodes which may
values are defined within the spectrum usage policies by each vary from 10 to 1000 nodes. High data rates are required for
country. sensor backhaul configurations up to several Mbps. Finally,
WLAN coverage extension and off-loading allow that certain
TABLE I
IEEE 802.11 AH TARGET SPECTRUM [2] amount of data traffic can be redirected from cellular to
WLANs, e.g., in hot-spot areas. This was proposed for U.S.
Geographic area Frequency [MHz] e.r.p. [mW] CWB [MHz] where up to 16 MHz channel bandwidth is available to allow
China 614-787; 779-787 5; 10 1 high data rates. IEEE 802.11ah WLAN data rates must be
Europe 863-868.6 10 1, 2
Japan 915.9-929.7 1, 20, 250 1
optimized regarding the rate versus range performance in a
Singapore 866-869; 920-925 500 1, 2, 4 given band [17]. In particular, this includes transmission range
South Korea 917-923.5 3; 10 1, 2, 4 ≤ 1 km and data rates ≥ 100 kpbs. The indoor coverage of sub-
United States 902-928 1000 1-20
1 GHz sensor nodes operating at 900 MHz have been analyzed
in [21], indicating a 6-9 dB gain in indoor environments
Table II compares relevant IEEE 802.11 and IEEE 802.15
compared to 2.4 GHz WLANs. The higher power gain results
standards. The table lists IEEE 802.11a, IEEE 802.11g, IEEE
in wider coverage with same tx-power level. An example
802.11ac, IEEE 802.11ah, and IEEE 802.15.4g as wireless per-
of the coverage range of IEEE 802.11ah compared with
sonal area network (WPAN). IEEE 802.15.4 does not support
IEEE 802.11n [4] is illustrated in Fig. 1. The figure depicts
multiplexing schemes, whereas WLANs support OFDM. IEEE
the simulated transmission performance with an implemented
802.11ah provides the longest wireless access range with 1 km
PHY simulator (1470 B packet size, UDP traffic, MCS 10).
radius in outdoor environments.
TABLE II
C OMPARISON OF IEEE 802.11 AND 802.15 STANDARDS A. The IEEE 802.11ah PHY
IEEE 802.11ah utilizes OFDM to achieve high data rates.
Metric 11a/g 11ac 11ah 15.4g
The rationale to standardize OFDM in IEEE 802.11ah is to be
Frequency 5G/2.4G 5G < 1G < 1G
Max. data 54M 6.93G 78M 800K consistent with the IEEE 802.11ac PHY/MAC amendment,
rate [bps] which allows a simple down-clocking of OFDM features to
Multiplex OFDM OFDM OFDM - smaller channel bandwidths [5]. Data are transmitted using
Modulation BPSK, BPSK, BPSK, FSK
QPSK, QPSK, QPSK, orthogonal sub-carriers or tones, in which data are equally
64QAM 64QAM, 64QAM, distributed over the sub-carriers. Each is affected by the
256QAM 256QAM frequency selective behavior - due to the multipath prop-
Bandwidth 20M 20M, 1M, 2M, 200K,
40M, 4M, 8M, 400K, agation - of the wireless channel, which may degrade the
80M, 16M 600K received signal quality. The total number of sub-carriers for
160M 1 MHz channel bandwidth operation is 26, which consists
Stream 1 8 4 1
Sub-carrier 48 52 24 - of 2 pilot sub-carriers (tones) and 24 data sub-carriers per
Range > 100m > 100m > 1km > 500m OFDM symbol. For higher channel bandwidth the number
of data and pilot tones (fixed, traveled) increases (484 tones
There have been over 10 proposed use cases for the IEEE for 16 MHz operation, with 16 pilot and 468 data tones) [2].
802.11ah protocol during the standardization phase, some of
which pose challenges to the WLAN architecture [14]– [19]:
1) Outdoor applications over long-range communication 1000
IEEE 802.11n, Nss=4
links up to 1 km;
Throughput [Mbps]

IEEE 802.11ah, Nss=2

2) Design of channel models that include both indoor and
outdoor modes; 100
3) The number of WLAN STAs, which is in the range of
10s to 1000s, which affects WLAN association, security,
and the channel access process; 10
4) A data rate for video streaming with 100 times larger
traffic volume than metering applications;
5) The energy consumption requirement for sensors, which 0 200 400 600 800 1000
is somewhat different from powered WLAN STAs; Distance [m]
6) Increased interference in outdoor deployments.
Fig. 1. Illustration of throughput performance versus distance, compared
A final compromise led to the agreement of three IEEE for IEEE 802.11n (Nss = 4) [4] and IEEE 802.11ah (Nss = 2) in a rural
802.11ah usage models, namely, (i) sensor networks, (ii) environment.

1553-877X (c) 2015 IEEE. Personal use is permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission. See
http://www.ieee.org/publications_standards/publications/rights/index.html for more information.
This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI
10.1109/COMST.2015.2429311, IEEE Communications Surveys & Tutorials
3

bits [25], [26]. Other IEEE 802.11 standards which consider

10
Nss=1, long GI outdoor channels are IEEE 802.11p for wireless access in
Nss=2, long GI vehicular environments at 5 GHz [39] and IEEE 802.11ac on
8 Nss=1, short GI enhancements for very high throughput at 6 GHz [6].
Nss=2, short GI
Throughput [Mbps]

6 B. The IEEE 802.11ah MAC

4 have been suggestions to further increase the power efficiency
2 smart grid communication [27], [28], optimized sleep modes
0 Compared to sensor nodes, an IEEE 802.11ah standardized
0 2 4 6
MCS index
Fig. 2. Illustration of throughput performance of IEEE 802.11ah MCS rates
(with short/long guard interval (GI)), 1 MHz channel bandwidth.
The tone spacing ∆F is at 31.25 kHz. The guard interval
(GI) duration TGI is 8 µs and 4 µs for short GI, respectively.
The OFDM symbol duration TSY ML with long GI is 40 µs,
and 36 µs for short GI, respectively. The short training field
(STF) duration TST F and the long training field (LTF) duration
TLT F are at 160 µs which have been selected for robustness
against multipath fading over long distances (omni-portion of
1 MHz frame format). The allowed error vector magnitude
(EVM) is (−4) dB for BPSK and (−32) dB for 256-QAM.
Minimum receiver sensitivity is (-98) dBm for BPSK and (-
72) dBm for 256-QAM, respectively. Fig. 2 illustrates the
IEEE 802.11ah PHY performance for different modulation and
coding schemes (MCS) rates at 1 MHz bandwidth (number
of spatial streams N ss = 1, 2). The IEEE 802.11ah path
loss models and the link budget are essential to judge the
performance in different outdoor environments [16]. The IEEE
802.11ah path loss P L(d) is classified into:
Macro deployment:
P L(d) = 8 + 37.6 log 10(d).
Pico/Hot zone deployment:
P L(d) = 23.3 + 37.6 log 10(d),
where d is the distance from the AP to the sensor node in
[m], and the carrier frequency fc [Hz] is assumed to be at
900 MHz. A correction factor of 21 log 10(f /900) must be
added if another frequency is used. A short link STA-to-AP
setup can be classified as flat-fading (flat fading channel) due
to the short delay spread and narrow bandwidth [22]. In [23],
the repetition scheme is introduced to increase the coverage
for S1G WLANs. The repetition scheme is a simple method
that can achieve up to 3 dB performance gain [24]. The IEEE
802.11ah repetition scheme is introduced to provide a robust
wireless link over 1km with guaranteed 150 kbps data rate. Im-
provements of PHY transmission efficiency have been focused
on minimizing the complexity cyclic redundancy check (CRC)
codes in order to reduce the number of transmitted parity
The IEEE 802.11ah MAC supports new PHY parameters,
particularly for long-range communication. Additionally, there
and high density access. Improved offset listen intervals for
[29], and grouping strategies for dense IEEE 802.11ah net-
works [30], [31], [32] have been in the research focus recently.
8 10
sub-1 GHz WLAN will offer a higher degree of scalability
(6000 nodes), improved energy efficiency, and multiple-input
multiple-output (MIMO) OFDM features [33]. For the cases
when the number of STAs is large, the maximum number of
STAs that can be supported by a single WLAN AP limits
the number of STAs, which is 2007 STAs [34]. Additionally,
interference plays an important role in the sub-1 GHz ISM-
band. The presence of current RFID devices, ZigBeeTM and
IEEE 802.15.4 devices in the 900 MHz radio-band will lead
to performance limitations of wireless transmissions when the
sub-1 GHz WLAN will emerge.
The IEEE 802.11ah MAC has to face these new network
challenges. It is argued in [35] that high density WLANs of up
to 6000 nodes can be covered within 1 km coverage radius. In
addition, a number of 10,000 sensors/actuators can be expected
in large outdoor areas for a deployment of a typical industrial
process automation [36]. Thus, enhanced MAC addressing
schemes are defined for high density deployments. In particu-
lar, the new restricted access window (RAW) function utilizes
a beaconing interval that is divided into a contention-free and
contention-based access period. The contention-free period
is further divided into pre-defined time-slots for the group-
based sensor access [37], [38]. The IEEE 802.11ah MAC
must provide mechanisms that enable the coexistence with
(1) other systems in the same license-exempt radio band, which
include the IEEE 802.15.4 protocols [11], [17]. It is expected
that wireless nodes must operate without battery replacement
for 5 to 10 years [24]. Thus, sleep algorithm are proposed
(2) consisting of an energy-aware sleeping algorithm and a high
priority algorithm, which is designed for machine-to-machine
(M2M) networks. The algorithm favors low energy devices
and provides such devices higher priority for channel access
[29].
III. U SE CASES OF LONG - RANGE OUTDOOR WLAN S
We summarize on reported WLAN usage scenarios, which
we classified into health care and environmental sensing.
A. Health care and outdoor activities
Work related to health care is reported by Abuali et al.,
[40], in which a long-range WLAN system is utilized. A
single AP for one-hop coverage of 3-4 km collects sensor

1553-877X (c) 2015 IEEE. Personal use is permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission. See
http://www.ieee.org/publications_standards/publications/rights/index.html for more information.
This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI
10.1109/COMST.2015.2429311, IEEE Communications Surveys & Tutorials
data from ZigBeeTM and RFID devices as part of a remote
well-being monitoring (RWM) system. The proposed system
connects up to 60 sensor nodes and 75 active RFID tags.
IEEE 802.11g/n is used as the WLAN. The sending power
varies from 0 to 4 W. A huge potential for the application of
long-range WLANs is in the monitoring of bio-mechanics of
athletes during training. The simple use - most athletes and
athletic facilities already use wireless monitoring systems and
WLAN access - of WLAN based wide-area sensor networks
enables a huge potential market for performance assessment
applications. Real-time tracing of body conditions in live-
events and on-line broadcasting are envisioned applications.
The non-intrusive collection of such data could be beneficial
in maximizing the performance of athletes during sporting
events and to prevent them from suffering severe injuries.
The monitored parameters include the pulse rate and oxygen
saturation. In addition, referee-assisted services could benefit
from an outdoor WLAN. Sivaraman et al., [41] stated that
the major challenge in extracting physiological data in real-
time is the limited radio range in sparse and highly dynamic
environments. Further, it was stated that the dynamics of
certain sports environments are unknown, such as in soccer
fields, which present a large outdoor area of >4000m2 . Such
knowledge about the environmental dynamics is essential to
design communication systems and protocols.
Wireless multi-hop communication was proposed to over-
come the limited transmission rage of body-worn devices and
human body attenuation. Interestingly, the authors in [41]
selected a slotted media access approach to mitigate data
frame collisions, in which each single body-worn device is
assigned to one time-slot. A poor wireless connection was
reported, based on the measurements in the soccer field, due
to the exposed physical location of some individuals. A novel
mobility model was developed, which includes the number of
players, base-stations and wireless links. López-Matencio et
al., [42] reported on the environmental sensing application and
its impact on the selection from a variety of tracks (hardness,
temperature, and moisture). Llosa et al., [43] reported the
challenges of remote monitoring of the rowing performance
of athletes during training cycles. Miniaturized motion sensors
(accelerometers) were used, which communicate wirelessly in
real-time to enable non-invasive measurement of rigid body
motions. A WLAN AP collected the monitored data of both
the boat and the crew members.
B. Metering
The collection of meter data in smart grids is an important
application of long-range WLANs. Smart grid wireless sys-
tems in the license-exempt bands are discussed in the IEEE
802 community [44]. IEEE 802.11ah is a candidate to connect
indoor meter devices and gateways to outdoor IEEE 802.11ah
APs mounted on poles. The sensor motes were equipped with
external panel antennae to mitigate the attenuation of natural
obstacles and to increase the communication range. The con-
trol and reading of residential utility meters can be performed
remotely, e.g., via a home gateway that sends the meter data to
the utility company. Such so-called automatic meter reading
1553-877X (c) 2015 IEEE. Personal use is permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission. See
http://www.ieee.org/publications_standards/publications/rights/index.html for more information.
4
(AMR) can be build up on a long-range and low-energy sub-
1 GHz sensor network that operates at 900 MHz. Gas, electric
and water meters can be read remotely, thereby avoiding
the monthly reading of such meters by personnel from the
utility providers [45]. Sensing can be executed as short-burst
data transmissions and covers smart metering applications,
such as monitoring gas, water and energy consumption [46].
Alternatively, a WLAN device from AtherosTM can be used
to study some of the performance issues. This device is based
on the IEEE 802.11g protocol and uses proprietary channel
bandwidths of 5 MHz to 20 MHz. The problem is that IEEE
802.11ah WLAN STAs may be installed in meter boxes, i.e.,
behind walls and metal shields [47], [24].
C. Environmental sensing
In [48], recent regional incidents, such as the Great East
Japan Earthquake and the resulting tsunami, are mentioned to
motivate the need for a dependable network infrastructure. In
addition, wireless networks for smart communities are outlined
in [48], in which standardized wireless systems, including
IEEE 802.15.4g and IEEE 802.11ah, are considered. The
communication range was reported to be 150 m. Notably,
the author called for an energy-efficient WSN due to the
unattended node distribution in the outdoor environment [42].
Long-range WLANs are applicable for outdoor sensing appli-
cations of pets [49], [50]. In addition to longer coverage, some
applications require energy efficient communication, which
becomes an important aspect in WLANs [51], [52].
IV. C HALLENGES IN LONG - RANGE WLAN S
Next, we report on general findings in long-range WLANs,
followed by PHY and MAC challenges. Reported problems
on coverage and energy usage complement our findings.
A. General findings
Early studies on outdoor WLAN deployments by Agoayo
et al., reported on findings in Roofnet [53], [54]. Their obser-
vation was that packet losses are mainly caused by multipath
interference, in which inter-symbol interference (ISI), caused
by reflection and delay - measured at >500 ns - of the signal
lead to packet collisions at the receiver. In addition, they found
that the SNR does not exhibit a significant correlation with the
packet delivery ratio.
Sayed et al., conducted wireless long-range measurements
on an interesting test site, i.e., in the (flat) desert, which
was 160 km away from the city; thus, there was no effect of
WLAN interference on the wireless link performance in their
study [55]. In addition, they developed a theoretical model to
validate the findings, based on the Hata/Okumura path loss
model, for carrier frequency fc = 2.4 GHz. A 50 MB file was
transferred in each measurement. They found that data files
<10 MB could travel up to 9 km line-of-sight (LOS). Files
larger than 10 MB could only reach up to 7 km. Interestingly,
they were able to demonstrate a linear increase of the round
trip time (RTT) of 350 ms at 5 km distance. Although, it was
not discussed in [55], their findings indicated a different initial
This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI
10.1109/COMST.2015.2429311, IEEE Communications Surveys & Tutorials
attenuation compared to that of the Hata/Okumura model -
Sayed reported that the measured values follow the modeled
path loss. However, a rough estimate in [55] proposed 110 dB
for the initial measured path loss, compared to 115 dB from the
model, which indicates a significant difference of 5 dB at 1 km
that continues over a distance of up to 7 km. A higher path loss
discrepancy can be observed between 2-5 km with 10 dB. The
reasons for this discrepancy are not clear, but we speculate
that over large distances, the orientation of the antenna beam
becomes an important factor.
Afanasyev et al., reported their findings in the freely
available outdoor wireless Internet service “Google Wi-Fi
Network”, which consists of 500 pole-top WLAN Mesh APs
in Mountain View, CA [56]. Whereas other reports focused
on mesh protocols, their study focused on how users could
benefit from urban WLAN networks. Their findings include
the traffic pattern of archetypal use cases and the different
access technologies. In particular, they refer to the exponential
increase of smart phone users; they found >15.000 associated
smart phones that use WLAN access within their network.
Chebrolu et al., reported that there is no direct correlation
between the link distance and the error rate [58]. Weather con-
ditions had little or no impact on the transmission performance
and were quantized to 1-2 dB changes in the link attenuation
for heavy rain or fog, compared to good weather conditions
(which even exhibited similar variations in attenuation). How-
ever, a significant correlation of transmission failures (WLAN
control frames) and outdoor temperature was reported with a
correlation coefficient of 0.36 in [59], suggesting that under
good weather conditions the use of WLAN increases; thus,
more data traffic occurs. The selected default packet size was
1400 B for each measurement with 11 Mbps tx-rate. Chebrolu
et al., proposed that a simple and robust rate adaptation
scheme would be beneficial, based on the SNR characteristics.
Surprisingly, this result is different than the findings in [60]
and [53], which suggests that for the plethora of WLAN proto-
cols used as long-range WLANs, different adaptation schemes
are required. Note that Chebrolu called for countermeasures
against interference to identify the “RF pollution” inside a
WLAN and among WLAN deployments. They concluded that
there should be a legal or semi-legal mechanism to detect,
diagnose, and control mutual interference [58]. Finally, they
provided a list of how to avoid measurement and WLAN
setup mistakes, such as the detection of the presence of
WLAN interference prior/during the measurements, unwanted
association of terminals to the surroundings, unknown APs,
buffer overflows due to fast packet inter-arrival times, and RF
leakage in the near-field.
The throughput performance decreases with the increase of
the coverage range. In [57] a linear regression of measured
RSSI value is presented dropping from -60 dBm down to -
80 dBm over a range of 300 m during UAV flyovers. The
default packet size was 200 B for each measurement. Chebrolu
et al., curiously concluded that their findings for IEEE 802.11b
would be applicable to IEEE 802.11g and IEEE 802.11a,
which was disproved by Bianchi et al., in which IEEE 802.11g
was not found to be an appropriate WLAN protocol for out-
door deployments [60]. The short guard interval (GI) of IEEE
1553-877X (c) 2015 IEEE. Personal use is permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission. See
http://www.ieee.org/publications_standards/publications/rights/index.html for more information.
5
802.11g does not reflect the impulse response characteristic of
outdoor multipath effects.
Trinchero et al., [61] used their modified WLAN equip-
ment at the European HiperLAN/2 test frequencies (5.49
- 5.71 GHz) to characterize the performance of their so-
called multikilometric (MKM) point-to-point infrastructure
and a 40 dBm isotropic radiated power (EIRP) limitation.
They claimed that the distances to be supported are in the
range of 10 km to 300 km, as tested in Italian rural, urban,
and mountain environments. Web traffic was used for all
measurement campaigns. The distinct frequency, that is helpful
to avoid interferences of common WLAN networks is 2.4 GHz.
The wireless links were tested over an 18-month period and
under harsh environmental conditions (−40o C, ice falls, snow
storms, and wind speeds up to 200 km/h). The problems
reported are mainly based on negative weather conditions, such
as lightning (transmitter destruction) and ice falls (damage of
solar panels for the energy supply). Various types of damage
due to over-voltage caused by the power regulator of the solar
panels are reported. Link outage is reported at 0% for distances
d ≤ 100 km and at 4% at d ≤ 300 km (mainly due to heavy
snow storms). The authors claimed a high reliability of their
evaluated MKM network.
Next, Paul et al., [62] reported on their observation of
the WLAN link performance in open outdoor networks. The
default packet size was 1470 B for all reported measurement
campaigns. They achieved a maximum range of 1800 m LOS
at 148 Mbps with IEEE 802.11n links in outdoor locations
for back-haul connection among WLAN APs. In their system,
polarized directional MIMO antennae (13.5 dBi) are mounted
at 5 m poles, and a robust MCS with 3-streams is applied. A
3 × 3 MIMO system is evaluated with 2 vertically and 1 hori-
zontally polarized antenna (13.5 dBi gain, 20o beam-width) at
5.5 GHz (ch=149, htx = 3 m). Further, the authors suggested
increasing the MAC driver’s default acknowledgment (ACK)
timeout value from 24µs to 38µs for AP distances of 800 m
and 1800 m, respectively. High MCS rates ≥ 18 are reported
to be unavailable for large distance link connectivity. Frame
aggregation is found to be beneficial to significantly improve
the throughput performance (≥ 200%) for large distances.
Channel bonding and a wider channel bandwidth (40 MHz)
along with a short guard interval (SGI) further improves the
transmission performance (450%).
The findings from different antenna constellations by Paul
et al., are remarkable. Different antenna (omni-directional)
constellations were evaluated, including a linear array and a
triangle with different antenna spacing values of 0 to 10 inches.
None of the antenna patterns exhibit positive effects on the
throughput; thus, these constellations do not exhibit significant
path orthogonality for 2-stream MCS rates. To explain the
MCS rate limitations, they discussed two phenomena. First,
the packet error rate is increased at high MCS rates due to
the strict EVM requirements. Device manufacturers must limit
the sending power Ptx for their devices at higher modulation
rates. Second, the calculation of the Fresnel zone with a range
of 1800 m corresponds to an antenna elevation of ≥ 3000 m.
Hence, the earth’s curvature becomes an obstacle of significant
importance. The measured throughput is reported at 165 Mbps
This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI
10.1109/COMST.2015.2429311, IEEE Communications Surveys & Tutorials
2-stream, high MCS rate 2&3-stream,
3-stream, low MCS rate low MCS rate
AP 300 800 STA 1800
Distance [m]
2&3-stream, high MCS rate
Fig. 3. MCS rate performance in long-range WLANs (IEEE 802.11n,
20/40 MHz bandwidth, 1470 B packet size), as discussed in [62].
(300 m), 148 Mpbs (800 m), and 40.8 Mpbs (1800 m) for
channel bandwidth 40 MHz, and 100 Mbps (300 m), 95 Mbps
(800 m), and 30 Mbps (1800 m) for a channel bandwidth of
20 MHz, indicating a significant performance drop for large
distance ≥ 800 m. Fig. 3 summarizes the observed MCS
performance of IEEE 802.11n in outdoor environments.
B. PHY
Bianchi et al., [60] reported their findings in an IEEE
802.11b/g mesh, in which surprisingly poor performance of
the IEEE 802.11g protocol was observed. It was concluded
that - although IEEE 802.11g utilizes OFDM, which should
provide robust transmission performance in a rich multipath
environment - the short physical layer convergence procedure
(PLCP) preamble and the impact of the cyclic prefix or guard
interval preceding each OFDM symbol, which were designed
for indoor use case scenarios, exacerbates packet errors in
outdoor environments. A short ERP-OFDM training sequence
of 16 µs in IEEE 802.11g, compared to 144 µs in IEEE
802.11b, would lead to PHY Protocol Data Unit (PPDU) errors
if the synchronization fails. They found, by classifying the
frames with errors, that physical errors (PHY errors) dominate
over cyclic redundancy check (CRC) and MAC errors in IEEE
802.11g, confirming the hypothesis that IEEE 802.11g is not
well suited for outdoor deployment due to the short PLCP
preamble, which results in a small multipath tolerance [60]. In
addition, Bianchi reported on the asymmetric link performance
(uplink, downlink) for all measured outdoor links.
Ting et al., [64] performed an insightful study on the use
of IEEE 802.11n WLANs for multi-hop networks as the
backhaul link in Malaysia’s rural areas. Their study focused
on maximizing the coverage and backhaul distance of IEEE
802.11n WLAN to enable various applications, e.g., to provide
basic telephony access, Internet broadband connection, and
community information access. They reported that co-channel
interference is the main interference contributor in their rural
network, which can be easily avoided by careful channel
planning, e.g., the use of orthogonal channels. The authors
suggest a general link budget LB [dB] model, given as
LB = EIRP − Rsen + Grx − F M − Lwall
where EIRP is the effective isotropic radiated power in
[dBm], Grx is the receiver antenna gain [dBi], F M is the fade
1553-877X (c) 2015 IEEE. Personal use is permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission. See
http://www.ieee.org/publications_standards/publications/rights/index.html for more information.
6
margin in [dB], Rsen is the receiver sensitivity in [dBi], and
Lwall is the wall penetration factor [63]. Lwall is set to zero
and F M to 28 dB to assure maximum link outage at 0.1 %
(Rayleigh fading). Coverage performance is measured with
the system settings of channel bandwidth of 40 MHz, transmit
EIRP of 30 dBm, fc = 5.8 GHz, and Grx = 15 dBi. The
link layer (IP layer) throughput efficiency is approximately
50 % (1/2) of the raw PHY data rate of IEEE 802.11n. The
highest data rate (MIMO, 4-stream) is reported at 300 Mbps at
a distance of 200 m which gradually decreases to 25 Mbps at
1 km. Remarkably, such distances are only achieved with the
lowest MCS rate settings (most robust modulation scheme, 4-
streams) [64]. A large single-cell coverage area (0.43 square
km) is reported at 1 Mbps and drops gradually to 0.36 square
km at 2 Mbps with further decreases in the coverage area for
increasing bandwidth. An increased number of spatial streams
were found to be beneficial to enhance the wireless coverage.
The delay spread reduces with increased distance due to the
dominance of the direct link. The delay spread was measured
at 500 m as 3.99 µs and at 1000 m as 1.80 µs. Interestingly, two
different optimizations are suggested: increasing the backhaul
distance is more suited for rural environments with low user
density, whereas maximizing the coverage area is more suited
for sub-urban or urban deployment scenarios. The WLAN
power amplifier (PA) shows a non-linear behavior for QAM
modulations at higher signal levels. Higher QAM performance
requires tight linearization of the power amplifier because any
PA distortion may lead to inter-modulation distortion (IMD)
products [65], which may violate the spectral masks which
was the system defined in [66].
C. MAC
Sheth et al., [54] reported the abysmal link performance of
long-range, point-to-point IEEE 802.11b WLANs in outdoor
environments. The observation was that outdoor long-range
links exhibited an intermediate deliver probability ratio, i.e.,
neither clearly bad nor good link quality was observed. Inter-
ference was classified as external WLAN interference, non-
WLAN interference, protocol induced losses, and multipath
interference. Although, in outdoor mesh WLAN deployments,
the effects of multipath were identified as the major contributor
to packet loss, due to the use of an omni-directional antenna,
in [54], the effect of external WLAN interference was identi-
fied as the major contributor - including the use of direct beam
antennae, which exacerbate the hidden node problem, in which
a transmitter and interferer erroneously sense the medium to
be idle, thus leading to packet collisions at the receiver. The
authors in [54] discussed potential remedies, and concluded
that channel selection schemes would be beneficial, but the
realization is too complex in large-scale WLAN deployments.
They reported that, although the channel distance may be
large, signal spillage from the interferer channel could affect
the primary channel, causing frame corruptions that result in
CRC errors [54]. Next, automatic rate fallback (ARF) would
(3)
allow WLANs to select robust modulation schemes. However,
due to the longer airtime of the data frames, the collision
probability would increase, outperforming the effect of the rate
This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI
10.1109/COMST.2015.2429311, IEEE Communications Surveys & Tutorials
adaptation. The conclusion was that adaptive coding schemes -
here the forward error correction (FEC) scheme - would result
in higher performance gains; in addition long burst errors are
thought to be mitigated rather than short burst errors with high
amplitude [54]. Note that Sheth observed optimal transmission
results when the sender increased its sending power tx in the
regime of 12-15 dB relative to the interferer.
Raman et al., reported on their design of a new MAC
protocol in [67], called 2P, a bipartite media access scheme
for which they claimed a 20-fold increase of transmis-
sion performance compared to consumer-off-the-shelf (COTS)
IEEE 802.11b carrier sense multiple access/collision avoid-
ance (CSMA/CA). Their focus was on the inefficiency of
CSMA/CA in COTS products for IEEE 802.11, which pro-
vides sufficient transmission performance in defined indoor
locations; however, by using CSMA/CA in an outdoor long-
distance deployment, dramatic impairments were reported.
This lack of outdoor performance motivated the design of
an alternative MAC. The authors in [67] were motivated by
the use of WLAN as a cost-effective alternative to cellular
service and sought to retain the cost advantage by redesigning
the MAC in which two states are introduced at each node:
the transmission phase and the reception phase. This design
requires a synchronized effort of all nodes within the network.
Using a token introduces new problems, including the loss
of synchrony and establishment of synchrony after the link
setup. In addition, they speculated that the near-field effect
cannot be avoided, even with high-precision antennae. A
helpful design of the MAC could address the phenomena,
which would result in a cost-efficient solution. As the authors
outlined, there is a threat of losing synchrony due to loss of
the token or during the onset of the link setup phase.
In [70], the authors outlined the challenges on channel
access mechanisms in the core of the MAC design. In IEEE
802.11 the distributed coordination function (DCF), the point
coordination function (PCF) and the enhanced distributed
channel access (EDCA) are utilized. Further, optional access
schemes, including the hybrid coordination function (HCF)
and the controlled channel access (HCCA) are defined, but are
based on fundamental principles which are the same [70]. A
comprehensive survey on wireless coexistence between IEEE
802.11 and IEEE 802.15.4 networks is given in [11], [71],
[72].
D. Coverage
There is a difference in regard to wireless coverage in rural
and urban environments. The deployment of the APs of a
WLAN mesh in rural areas almost always leads to a patch-
work of coverage that does not provide continuous coverage.
A reason for this lack of coverage is that user locations
are primarily beside streets, harbors, rivers, etc. The authors
in [64] reported that a maximal coverage of IEEE 802.11n
with 4 spatial streams (SS) can reach up to 800 m at 50 Mbps
with the use of directional antennae of 15 dB gain, which is
appropriate for the back-haul link. The use of an antenna with
3 dB gain only lead to coverage of 400 m at 50 Mbps, which
is appropriate for access links for mobile users. Sevani et. al
1553-877X (c) 2015 IEEE. Personal use is permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission. See
http://www.ieee.org/publications_standards/publications/rights/index.html for more information.
7
[68] suggested that TDMA schemes are beneficial in long-
range WLANs, but should not be applied in mesh-networks.
The studies in [56], [53] indicated that there is no direct
correlation between the SNR value and the link quality. This
finding is in contrast to the observations that the error rate
behaves as a function of the received signal strength in a
manner that is closely described by the theory [58]. Abuali et
al., [40] reported on WLAN networks which target a coverage
range of up to 3 km. A 2.4 GHz COTS IEEE 802.11g WLAN
router was connected to a 0.5-4 dB automatic gain controller
(AGC) WLAN amplifier. Coverage simulations of outdoor Wi-
Fi hotspots with omni-directional antennae were reported in
[69], which exhibited a good agreement with experimental
results. Table III summarizes the discussed outdoor long-range
WLAN systems and provides direct comparisons to the results
of the existing studies as discussed in this article. The purpose
is to obtain the lessons learned by those authors and what
was observed during their measurement campaigns. Antenna
heights, distance, and prerequisites are important indicators
to compare the transmission performance of each outdoor
WLAN. Additionally, observations and hypothesis are listed
as stated by the authors.
E. Energy efficiency
Ab-Hamid et al., [74] discussed the energy efficiency of
solar-powered long-range WLAN networks of range of 10 km
for rural communications in which energy is scarce. In their
study, six nearby villages were connected to the Internet in the
most remote community in Malaysia, and the system had to
overcome challenges in the environment, such as mountains
and dense vegetation. Reliable power supply is important to
provide a self-sustainable WLAN with reduced requirement
for the maintenance of APs and to increase the battery lifespan.
A combination of renewable power sources that combines
both solar and wind to power WLAN mesh networks was
reported by Bernardi et al., [75]; the dynamics in the weather
conditions revealed that this combination of renewable power
sources perfectly complements each other. Energy conversion
strategies for large-scale WSNs are outlined in [76].
V. L ONG - RANGE WLAN S IN EXPOSED AREAS
We report on challenges, which were found in areas, in-
cluding sea-surfaces, high altitude unmanned aerial vehicles
(UAVs) and tunnels.
A. WLANs over sea-surfaces
Considerations on the path loss over sea-surfaces have
recently become important. Natural disasters, such as the 2011
Japanese earthquake that triggered a massive Tsunami, can
cause unprecedented damage to both, human life and the envi-
ronment. As a result, appropriate warning systems, including
the sea-level sensing, are of great importance. In [75], the
use of over-water radio propagation is discussed. The authors
developed a long-range WLAN to connect rural environments
in coastal and remote regions, partly over (sea) water, in the
Scottish Highlands and Islands. They reported the challenging
This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI
10.1109/COMST.2015.2429311, IEEE Communications Surveys & Tutorials
8

TABLE III
C OMPREHENSIVE OVERVIEW ON OUTDOOR , LONG - RANGE N ETWORKS

Testbed Basis Location Antenna Link Prerequisites Observations & Hypothesis

distance
Sheth [54] IEEE 802.11b Urban, High-gain directional 2-20 km MAC-layer ACKs Cause of packet loss for direc-
(1 Mbps), 20- rural antenna (24 dBi, 8 disabled, retry=0; channel tional antennae is external WLAN
50 m antenna degree beam-width), characteristics without interference. Remedies are chan-
height, UDP LOS. retries. nel selection, ARF, and FEC [73].
1440 B, 1 Mbps Ill-suited MAC protocol due to
and 11 Mbps CSMA breakdown for long-range
CBR. WLANs.
Afanasyev, IEEE 802.11g Urban, Directional antennae 500 m None reported. Rate-limited traffic per user is
Google citywide 1 Mbps. Hierarchically clustered to
Wi-Fi [56] mitigate collisions at the AP in-
duced by near users.
Aguayo, IEEE 802.11b, Urban Omni-directional >1 km None reported. Cause for packet loss is multi-path
Roofnet [53] multi-hop, effects due to omni-directional an-
wireless mesh tennae.
network.
Bianchi [60] IEEE 802.11b Campus Omni-directional, 100- ICMP (1500 B) echo reply Poor IEEE 802.11g “multipath tol-
(1, 11 Mbps), 5 dBi gain. 250 m disabled to avoid reverse erance” compared to IEEE 802.11b
IEEE 802.11g traffic. ARF, RTS/CTS due to short PLCP preamble. The
(6, 12 Mbps), disabled, retry=11. Fixed ERP-OFDM training preamble is
point-to-point sending rate selected. 16 µs (IEEE 802.11g), and 144 µs
links, 8-15 m (IEEE 802.11b). PHY error domi-
antenna height, nates CRC errors (IEEE 802.11g).
EIRP=20 dBm.
Chebrolu [58] IEEE 802.11b; Rural High-gain directional 1-37 km MAC ACK disabled to Error rate independent of link
15-40 m antenna parabolic grid measure the packet error length. No effect of weather con-
height; 0- antennae, 24 dBi rate independently. ditions. Near-field effect and RF
20 dBm; gain, 8 degree beam leakage are significant. Hardware
1 Mbps, 2 Mbps, width; sector antenna, performance limitations due to
5.5 Mbps, and 17 dBi gain, 90 inefficient buffer interrupt pro-
11 Mbps; 100, degree beam width; cess. Semi-legal countermeasures
500, 1400 B; 12 dBi antenna, 60 against mutual interference.
UDP & TCP. degree beam width.
Sayed [55] IEEE 802.11g Desert Build-in (directional) <10 km None reported. Multipath interference is cause for
panel antenna; 24 dBi packet loss due to omni-directional
gain (AP); 30 degree antennae.
beam width (AP);
18 dBi gain (STA); 28
degree beam width
(STA); 3 m antenna
height; 255 mW
sending power (tx ,
rx ).
Raman [67] IEEE 802.11b, 0- Village Parabolic grid direc- 0.9 km- MAC ACK disabled; car- Side-lobes of near-proximity anten-
20 dBm sending tional antenna, 24 dBi 8 km rier sense disabled. Dis- nae, which do not allow concur-
power. antenna gain 30-40 m able carrier-sense scheme rent transmission and reception of
antenna height. (sensing of the noise-floor data frames. Near-field effect not
only). Send of dummy mitigated even with high-precision
packets to maintain syn- antennae.
chrony.
Bernardi [75] IEEE 802.11b/g; Rural, High performance 2.5 km Backhaul is configured to Use of bidirectional backhaul links
fc =2.4 GHz coastal dish antenna to 19 km use ad-hoc demo mode with different polarization to mit-
(access); IEEE (backhaul); 29 dBi to avoid sending manage- igate interference. Self-powered
802.11a; gain; dual polarity; ment frames or beacons; (wind/solar) WLAN APs.
fc =5 GHz panel antenna RTS/CTS off; MAC Ack
(backhaul). (access); 19 dBi gain; and slot time configured
rooftop mounted. to support long-distance;
ARF enabled.

channel characteristics for over-water links of: (a) multipath
reflections and their dynamics due to changes of the water level
(tidal patters) and (b) signal attenuation that is significantly
different than the signal absorption of water, which results in
unexpected measured link characteristics that are somewhat
different from other observed long-range WLANs in the liter-
ature, e.g., from land-based rural WLAN Mesh networks [75],
[97]. The WLAN distances considered include 2.5 km, 7.6 km,
9.3 km, and 15.9 km, with the longest WLAN link considered
being 19 km point-to-point LOS over water.
In [77], it is argued that evaporation ducts and elevation
ducts over the sea have a significant impact on the path loss
by decreasing the path loss exponent. They concluded that
the free space loss (FSL) model is incorrect for the path loss
calculation over a sea-surface.
Meng et al., discussed signal propagation over the sea-
surface in [78] and for airborne altitudes (300 m - 1.8 km)
in [77]. Multipath statistics were analyzed for air-to-ground

1553-877X (c) 2015 IEEE. Personal use is permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission. See
http://www.ieee.org/publications_standards/publications/rights/index.html for more information.
This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI
10.1109/COMST.2015.2429311, IEEE Communications Surveys & Tutorials
communication at 5.7 GHz (C-band) over sea locations near
Singapore (Singapore Strait) under tropical conditions. Ad-
ditionally, their findings indicated that the Friis model is
not useful to predict path loss, as observed from their mea-
surement campaign. The authors confirmed that the 3-ray
multipath model fits with the observed measurement with
95% confidence (fc =5-8 GHz). In addition, multipath fading
was reported to significantly contribute to the signal outages
in the air-to-ground communication, which increases with
higher attenuation. Spatial diversity was proposed to mitigate
the multipath fading effects by applying selective combining
to select the antenna with the highest signal (SNR) [78].
This multipath fading effect is alleviated at higher elevation.
Similar observations on multipath characteristics have been
reported by Bernardi et al., [75], where water levels caused
significant dynamics in the signal attenuation of long-range
mesh networks over the sea-surface.
B. UAV WLANs
Path loss modeling for UAVs and micro-UAVs (MUAVs),
are garnering attention because of their applicability in new re-
mote sensing applications, surveillance and disaster missions.
UAVs operate at altitudes above ground level: hUAV ≤ 500 m
[57]. The majority of UAVs, which are used in both long-
range tactical and civil UAVs, are equipped with WLANs,
making them relevant to this study. Cheng et al., [79] re-
ported on the wireless performance measurements of UAV
communications to ground located nodes using COTS wireless
devices. IEEE 802.11a wireless links were evaluated based
on RSSI measurements over distances up to 300 m. The aim
was to identify the best antenna constellation among the
airborne UAV and ground stations. Although, the maximum
received packet ratio was reported to be only 33%, Chen
concluded that horizontal-to-horizontal configuration is the
best constellation if the antennae are elevated. Additionally,
the authors recommend the use of omni-directional antennae
instead of high-gain, narrow-beam antennae for both the UAV
and the ground station.
Ahmed et al., [80] reported their observations for aerial
wireless sensor networks (AWSNs), which generally consists
of multiple UAVs. The study included the characterization of
communication links in real deployments, including ground-
to-air (G-A), air-to-air (A-A), and air-to-ground (A-G). Large
distances among the WSN nodes are possible when the eleva-
tion of the sender and receiver are at 2.8 m, reaching distances
up to 240 m. The antenna patterns of the nodes are not com-
pletely omni-directional in 3D. Two major contributions are
relevant for link degradation: (i) antenna configuration and (ii)
multi-path fading effects due to ground reflections. The results
indicated a significant dependence of antenna orientation and
on the RSSI performance, which was reported to vary by
6 dB (0 − 135o orientation, quasi omni-directional). Horizontal
mounting improved the RSSI compared to a vertical mount-
ing of the nodes. Both RSSI and the packet reception rate
(PRR) were increased when node elevation was increased. The
authors concluded that near-ground deployments suffer from
reflections and absorptions in aeronautical WSNs. Raising the
1553-877X (c) 2015 IEEE. Personal use is permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission. See
http://www.ieee.org/publications_standards/publications/rights/index.html for more information.
9
antenna height to 2.8 m resulted in successful PRR (80%)
for distances (G-A) of up to 70 m (Ptx = 0 dBm). The
maximum distance was observed at 240 m (A-A). Additionally,
the authors confirmed that grey zones are prominent when the
sender and the receiver are placed at high altitudes, similar
to the findings as reported in [77], where significant impacts
of gray zones were observed at higher altitudes over the
sea-surface. By consequence, protocol designer must consider
remedies against grey zones for aerial WSNs. The best antenna
configuration was reported as horizontal transmit antenna to
horizontal receive antenna over a wide range up to 200 m.
Again, worst performance was observed for vertical-to-vertical
dipole antennae constellation at small antenna distance due
to the null beam constellation of each antenna beam [79].
In contrast, at large distances, this situation is less likely to
occur, thus resulting in higher UDP throughput performance
compared to the use of horizontal oriented dipole antennae
[57]. The observation was that the cross-polarized antenna
configuration showed improved performance at the large dis-
tances of 300 m. Traffic off-loading in cellular networks using
a swarm of UAVs was proposed by Rohode et al., [81].
Rohde assumed free-space propagation and used the Friis
equation to estimate the path loss; they determined a path
loss exponent of 3.3 (Macro2UE model) without considering
additional fading effects. A differentiation between urban and
rural areas is beneficial, due to the impact on propagation,
fading and attenuation of the emitted electromagnetic radio
waves. The authors argued, that the relevant path loss models
are Okumura-Hata, COST-Hata, and COST Walfish-Ikegami
(COST-WI). A problem with the path loss models is that
they are valid up to an altitude of 50 m. For higher altitudes,
a generalized free space propagation model (Friis model) is
applicable. At distinct distances, the LLOS wave and the
reflected ground wave Lgrw interfere and thus reduce the
received signal φ at given distance d (destructive interference).
A general estimation of the grey zone is provided in [80]. They
concluded that air-to-air communication links perform best
among all types of links. The ground-to-air link performs bet-
ter than the air-to-ground link at the minimum antenna heights.
Increased antenna height increases the observed throughput.
In general, cross-polarization has a negative impact on
the transmission performance, as stated in [57]. The authors
concluded that dipole antennae exhibited the best performance
(for moving UAVs) compared to narrow-beam antennae. The
authors discussed the phenomena of a reduced path loss
exponent of less than 2. The authors argued that this reduction
was due to the limitation of the 802.11 equipment, where
at long distances, only packets of sufficiently high received
signal power are successfully received. Otherwise, packets
with weak signal strengths would not be successfully decoded,
thus resulting in a skewed exponent at large distances. Higher
sending power is beneficial to increase the successful packet
reception [57]. Similar to the observations in [80], the au-
thors recommend a high elevation of the ground stations to
improve the wireless link performance. Remarkably, the au-
thors reported serious problems involving interference between
the UAV board-computer and the 72 MHz R/C receiver of
the UAV. The authors speculated that the interference was
This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI
10.1109/COMST.2015.2429311, IEEE Communications Surveys & Tutorials
caused by the 66 MHz bus system, which resulted in a higher
noise level. Hardware interferences were solved by increasing
the distance between the R/C receiver and the additionally
shielded on-board computer.
In [57] different UAV path loss models were considered,
including coverage evaluation of in aerial 3D-networks. The
results were obtained using a captive balloon. With increasing
altitudes, the RSSI becomes higher up to 290 m, where the
antenna directivity was lost. The authors reported an escalation
in handovers (HOs) at altitudes of 100-150 m because more
cellular base stations (different cell-IDs) are in the line of sight
or detected through multi-path propagation. Higher altitudes
can result in alternating HOs among the remaining BS, i.e., so-
called ping ponging. The authors concluded that in the vicinity
of the ground, the impact of antenna directivity and poor
ground coverage due to shadowing is significant. However, this
effect diminishes at higher altitudes as the coverage becomes
homogeneous.
In [75], the use of dual polarity high performance antennae
was proposed to reduce interference. In addition, wireless
links are applied with different polarizations (horizontal and
vertical). It is argued that this approach can be advantageous in
mitigating interference and to increase the link capacity. Table
IV presents the summary of the problems found and lists the
remedies proposed that were discussed in the literature. The
aim is to provide a rule-of-thumb based on the reported find-
ings in the literature. Additionally, it provides some guideline
on which metric becomes important to focus to optimize an
outdoor WLAN.
C. Wireless propagation in tunnels and mines
Hrovat et al., [8] reported in their survey of radio propa-
gation characteristics at 900 MHz for arched and rectangular
tunnels and in coal mines of several kilometers length. Propa-
gation in tunnels is significantly different compared to outdoor
areas and is classified in three regions, namely, (i) near region
with high path loss, (ii) far region where the waveguide effect
is apparent, and (iii) extreme far region where the path loss
follows the free path loss propagation model. Note that the
wave guided effect has been reported only for tunnels with
large transverse dimensions x [m]. The breakpoint location
is lbp = x2 /λ, which depends on the carrier frequency, the
tunnel geometry and the antenna characteristics.
VI. L ESSONS LEARNED ( SO FAR ...)
The reported performance limitations of outdoor long-range
WLANs in the literature are classified in environmental con-
ditions, PHY settings, MAC settings, and antenna settings.
Additionally, wireless performance at high altitudes are of
paramount importance when UAVs are in the research focus;
thus, are considered as such in the following overview:
A. Environmental conditions
WLANs in urban environments are highly affected by
two main sources, namely, multipath and external WLAN
interference. The negative effects of multipath are dominant
1553-877X (c) 2015 IEEE. Personal use is permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission. See
http://www.ieee.org/publications_standards/publications/rights/index.html for more information.
10
if omni-directional antennae are used. Multipath effects lead
to higher delay spreads and attenuation (scatter); thus, leading
to inter-symbol interference (ISI). If directional antennae are
used, a WLAN significantly suffers from external WLAN
interference, due to the hidden node effect [54]. Fewer multi-
path effects are reported; thus, a lower delay spread - within
one order of magnitude - for long distance WLAN links
when directional antennae are used [54]. It was confirmed
that antenna height and antenna directivity are of paramount
importance when increasing the coverage range (intuitive).
Weather conditions have little or no impact on the path
loss (1-2 dB) [58]. The lower layers attenuate the effect of
atmospheric parameters. In addition, error protection at upper
layers minimize the influence of meteorological effects [59].
Harsh weather conditions are more likely to damage the
energy supply (solar panels, power regulators), e.g., due to
thunderstorms or heavy snowfalls. Increasing the backhaul
distance is more suited for rural environments with low user
density, whereas maximizing the coverage area is more suited
for sub-urban or urban deployment scenarios [64].
B. PHY settings
An increased link distance leads to ACK timeouts, due
to the increased propagation delay. The modification of the
ACK timeout value in the WLAN chipset (tACK = 746 µs,
AtherosTM), results in a robust communication distance of
110 km until the delay exceeds the ACK timeout and the
sender starts retransmitting data frames [54]. At large dis-
tances, a mismatch between the theoretical path loss models
and the measured data occurs at the coverage edge, due to
the imperfect receiver characteristics of the WLAN device at
low signal strengths. TDMA schemes are beneficial in long-
range networks, but not in mesh-networks, due to lack of time
synchronization among multiple hops [68]. The use of a larger
number of spatial streams (MIMO) is beneficial to increase the
coverage [64]. 2-stream works well for high MCS rates and
long range ≤ 1800 m, whereas 3-stream only works at low
MCS rate and short distances ≤ 300 m [62]. The use of a
higher number of spatial streams requires lower MCS rates
(most robust modulation) when a large distance is the primary
concern [64].
Combining wider channel bandwidth and SGI is recom-
mended (450% improvement). The frame aggregation must
be enabled to observe the positive effects on wider chan-
nel bandwidth and SGI [62]. Design suggestions in legacy
WLANs: IEEE 802.11g is recommended for radio access
(high data rate at short distances), whereas IEEE 802.11a is
recommended for backhaul link setup (more channels, less
congested). Over-provisioning of the link budget by selecting
higher signal strength can help to mitigate the effect of external
WLAN interference. 10-15 dB higher signal strength can offer
a significant increase of traffic performance.
The path loss characteristic is highly affected by the sur-
roundings; thus, it requires a careful examination of the
WLAN outdoor location. Table V summarizes the discussed
path loss models.
This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI
10.1109/COMST.2015.2429311, IEEE Communications Surveys & Tutorials
11

TABLE IV
S UMMARY OF REPORTED PROBLEMS THAT HAVE BEEN OBSERVED IN OUTDOOR LONG - RANGE WLAN S .

Nr. Problem Cause Proposed remedies

1 Theoretical and measured path loss do not
match at ≥ 300 m [57].
2 RSSI fluctuation of 6 dB (0 - 135o ) due to
antenna direction [79].
3 RSSI limits the coverage range [57].
4 Existence of grey zones [79].
5 Interference between on-board controller
and wireless device [79].
6 Link reliability to moving objects [79].
7 Maximize throughput (UDP) in 3D net-
works (e.g., UAV) [79].
8 Antenna configuration at narrow/wide dis-
tance [79].
9 Cross-correlated antennae limit
coverage[57].
10 Common channel models become useless at
higher altitudes ≥ 50 m [57].
11 Increased handover (HO) at higher altitude
(100-150 m). Higher altitude can result in
alternating HOs (ping-ponging) [57].
12 Multi-path effects over sea-surface [78],
[77].
Fail of packet capture due to low signal
power at the receiver.
Narrow-beam characteristic of directional
antennae.
Ground reflections and attenuation (limited
Fresnel-zone).
Destructive interference between LOS wave
and ground reflected wave.
Interference of CPU BUS at 66 MHz and
higher noise level.
Beam does not direct to the target.
Throughput depends on antenna height and
position.
Antenna null beam direction affects the per-
formance.
Cross-correlated antennae do not enable
larger coverage in aerial networks.
Lower shadowing and antenna increase the
successful signal reception at higher alti-
tudes.
More BS are detected due to LOS and multi-
path propagation and overcoming the earth’s
curvature.
Multipath at near sea level due to reflec-
tions.
Change 802.11 equipment or increase Ptx .
Use omni-directional antennae for wider
coverage area.
Higher elevation of tx/rx antenna. 2.8 m
achieves up to 240 m (Ptx =0 dB) range.
Maximize antenna elevation.
Maximize distance between devices. Addi-
tional shielding of controller, connectors,
and switches recommended.
Point the antenna null beam to a direction
perpendicular to the moving target object.
Horizontal-to-horizontal antenna position is
recommended.
Narrow: horizontal antenna; wide: vertical
antenna.
Cross-correlated antennae are not recom-
mended.
New channel models at high altitudes rec-
ommended.
No remedies reported.
Use of spatial diversity to mitigate signal
outages.

TABLE V
S UMMARY OF COMMON AND NEWLY PROPOSED PATH LOSS MODELS .

fc Model Path loss [dBm] Remarks

p
900 MHz COST-WI [57] LW I = 42.6 + 26 log dLOS + 20 log fc dLOS = d2 + h2rx
2000 MHz COST-HATA LHata = (46.3 + 33.9 log fc − a = (1.1 log fc − 0.7)Hrx − 1.56 log fc −
[57] 13.82 log htx − a + (44.9 − 0.8; C=0 dB (suburban); C=3 dB (urban).
6.55 log htx ) log dLOS ) + C
900-2000 MHz High altitude Lurban
f itted = 89.5357 − (0.0001hrx +
3 “Attenuation is is valid for aerial utilization
(urban,sub- ≥50 m [57] 0.0108h2rx + 0.8588hrx ) of GSM/UMTS” [57].
urban)
900-2000 MHz High altitude Lrural
f itted = 78.2186 − (0.0013hrx +
2 “Attenuation is valid for aerial utilization of
(rural) ≥50 m [57] 0.0052hrx ) GSM/UMTS” [57].
5-8 GHz (over FSL [77] LF SL = −27.56 + 20 log 10fc + “...FSL model is incorrect over the sea-
sea-surface) 20 log 10(d) surface ...” [77].
5-8 GHz (over 2-ray loss model L
2−ray = Recommended over sea-surface.
sea-surface) [77]  2 h  i2 
λ 2πhtx hrx
4πd
2 sin λd
4π


900-1800 MHz Friis [81] L = 20 log 10 λ
+ 10γ log 10 |xi − xj | γ = 3.3 (Macro2UE).
(aerial relay)
5.8 GHz (rural) FSL [64] LF SL = −10α(log 10(d) + 3) + Penetration loss (wall/wood)=1.609 dB [64].
20 log 10(fc ) − 147

C. MAC settings
Long-distance WLAN communication significantly suffers
from CSMA/CA limitations. The increased propagation delay
in addition to bidirectional traffic can lead to an increased
number of packet collisions. High MCS rates (≥ 18, Nss ≥ 2)
fail to establish link connectivity over a large coverage [62].
At long distances, two effects limit the MCS rate, namely,
EVM restrictions and the Earth’s curvature [62]. Further,
in cases where ARF changes to a lower MCS rate, the
airtime of the data frames increases, thus leading to higher
collision probability in dense WLANs [54]. As a result, ARF
exacerbates the number of packet collisions. The decision
feedback equalization (DFE) demodulation process optimizes
the receiver performance under any given channel condition to
provide the best possible SNR for any given environment. A
Reed-Solomon (RS) error correction is suggested to mitigate
errors, which is capable of correcting up to 2 byte-errors
per frame. Packet aggregation is beneficial over long-range
wireless links (200% improvement) [62]. The use of block
ACKs can significantly improve the performance in long-range
WLANs, due to reduced overhead and ACK collisions.
D. Antenna settings
When using directional antennae, researchers suggest using
polarized antennae to further increase the diversity gain, e.g.,
in MIMO systems [82]. This approach has been found to be

1553-877X (c) 2015 IEEE. Personal use is permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission. See
http://www.ieee.org/publications_standards/publications/rights/index.html for more information.
This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI
10.1109/COMST.2015.2429311, IEEE Communications Surveys & Tutorials
beneficial when path loss orthogonally cannot be achieved over
long distances, even in a LOS situation. Linear array antennae
only exhibit path orthogonality for very short distances [62],
[82]. Antenna configuration and the antenna null beam are
affecting the transmission. A horizontal antenna configuration
is recommended for narrow range, a vertical antenna config-
uration for wide range, respectively.
E. High altitude
Multipath and ground reflections become dominant with
increased altitude; thus, grey zones increase. This is partic-
ularly true over a sea-surface. Additionally, high altitudes
cause alternating handovers (ping ponging) due to the LOS of
multiple APs or BSs. Further, near-ground antenna mounting
was found to be detrimental, whereas high elevation antenna
mounting positively contributes on the coverage range. At high
altitudes, the impact of obstacles on the path loss is negligible.
Finally it is noted that using WLANs in scenarios, which were
not considered during the PHY/MAC standardization process,
will result in unexpected performance loss, e.g., IEEE 802.11b
exhibits limitations in point-to-multipoint scenarios [54].
VII. F UTURE RESEARCH CHALLENGES
To optimize the system performance of long-range WLANs
further research is encouraged, and should be focused on the
improvements of the antenna metric, wireless link metric, and
network metric which have a significant impact on the wireless
transmission characteristic.
A. Antenna metric
The outdoor use of multiple antennae, either as phased array
or as MIMO spatial streaming, requires further investigation.
There are reported merits and demerits to the use of multiple
antenna arrays in long-range outdoor deployments. Although
large antenna heights have been applied to some outdoor
WLANs, no guideline is given for the appropriate height to
use. Further research is required regarding the transmission
characteristics when obstacles or persons are crossing the
Fresnel-zone. In [66], it has been reported that channel data
rates of 320 kbps in 25 kHz channels are possible, providing
coverage diameters in excess of 60 kilometers with antennae of
moderate height. Thus, the practical upper boundary of 1 MHz
must be at 12.8 Mbps. Future measurement studies may show
if such performance boundaries are realistic, in particular for
IEEE 802.11ah WLANs.
B. Link metric
At altitudes of ≥50 m common path loss models have
been found useless. In particular, the Friis model is not
recommended. The cause of this effect is reduced shadowing
and the impact of antenna directivity at higher altitude. Instead,
new path loss modes are encouraged, which can be based
on 2-ray-ground or 3-ray-ground models. Next, long-range
WLANs would be an appropriate choice, to link offshore
objects. Research is required on the impact of the transmission
characteristics over water surface, e.g., when WLANs are
1553-877X (c) 2015 IEEE. Personal use is permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission. See
http://www.ieee.org/publications_standards/publications/rights/index.html for more information.
12
deployed as tsunami warning systems. Further, the effect
of beamforming when using consecutive links leads to an
increase of link instability, thereby increasing the received
noise variance; thus, studies on beamforming in long-range
ad-hoc networks are required [83]. Noise floor measurements
have been reported, but different results were found. In some
measurements, a linearly increasing noise floor was correlated
with an increase of packet errors. In large outdoor deploy-
ments, wide-band noise was not observed [54].
C. Network metric
There has been little or no research on IEEE 802.15.4
and IEEE 802.11ah network coexistence at 900 MHz. Initial
studies suggest that there is a threat of asynchronous channel
access in which non-harmonized carrier sense access (CCA)
thresholds result in high number of packet collisions. Further,
there are various sources of non-WLAN interference present,
including microwave ovens, baby phones, and cordless phones,
which do not follow the IEEE 802.11 channel access protocol,
thus leading to significant packet collisions. Additionally, mas-
sive access is considered as a wireless media access scenario
in dense WLANs [84], [85]. Massive Access is discussed as a
usage model in IEEE 802.11ax [86], IEEE 802.16p and LTE-
A and it may appear in M2M and Internet-of-Things (IoT) as
a new access scheme [22], [87]. Massive access schemes have
been proposed in 3GPP networks [90]–[92], but not thoroughly
evaluated. New codebook selection strategies and sectorization
of the coverage area can further mitigate coexistence problems
[88], [89]. Finally, the advice is to conduct field tests to
identify limitations in transmission performance, e.g., by using
a WLAN prototype [93]–[96].
VIII. C ONCLUSIONS
This survey provided a comprehensive summary of the chal-
lenges and implications of long-range WLAN deployments
which were reported in the scientific literature over the period
2002 to 2014. Potential use cases of outdoor WLANs were
suggested, including health care, outdoor activities, meter-
ing, and environmental sensing. However, outdoor WLANs
have shown significant performance limitations. Unexpected
communication problems in outdoor environments as well as
invalid path loss models were found in exposed communica-
tion areas. This is particularly true at high altitudes over sea-
surfaces. Path loss characteristics were discussed and changes
of path loss coefficients were motivated to model an accurate
path loss performance. So-called grey zones are the cause of
signal outages at high altitudes that otherwise could not be
explained. As such, UAVs and 3D-networks were included in
this survey to identify new communication challenges.
Additionally, measured long-distance communication exhib-
ited the problem of inaccuracy due to significant hardware
limitations of the WLAN modules. Two-ray-ground path loss
models were found to be accurate, whereas the Friis-model is
only applicable for short distances of multiple wavelengths.
Multi-stream MIMO is beneficial to extend the coverage, but
robust MCS rates are required; thus, a throughput limitation is
the result. A 2-stream configuration is able to connect wireless
This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI
10.1109/COMST.2015.2429311, IEEE Communications Surveys & Tutorials
terminals over a very large distance up to 1800 m, whereas the
3-stream configuration only provides short distances. Whereas
IEEE 802.11b at 2.4 GHz was reported to be useful for outdoor
deployments, IEEE 802.11g was found to be useless due to
the significant short PHY preambles. In particular, the IEEE
802.11ah protocol is of interest because this emerging sub-
1 GHz WLAN protocol amendment is targeting long-range
outdoor deployments at 900 MHz as a worldwide standard.
The IEEE 802.11ah PHY is well-designed for outdoor commu-
nication, including robust MCS rates and long training pream-
bles. However, due to the lack of certified IEEE 802.11ah
WLAN modules, little or no information is reported of outdoor
performance of this new WLAN standard.
Our findings are helpful for network designers of sub-1 GHz
long-range outdoor WLANs in constrained areas, including
tunnels, high altitudes, and sea-surfaces. A gap analysis in
this article identified required actions for future research of
IEEE 802.11ah outdoor deployments. Sub-1 GHz WLANs will
be deployed in the near future in various regions, including
China, Europe, Japan, Singapore, South Korea, and USA. Such
WLANs will exploit a larger coverage area and high wireless
penetration of obstacles. In anticipation of this deployment,
this paper presented the advances of outdoor WLANs and
considered the challenges that must be addressed so that sub-
1 GHz WLANs can be further optimized, making the study of
long-range WLANs a demanding task.
R EFERENCES
[1] W. Y. Chen, “Home networking basis - Transmission environments and
wired/wireless protocols,” Prentice Hall, 2004.
[2] IEEE P802.11ahTM /D5.0, “Draft standard for information technology -
telecommunications and information exchange between systems - Lo-
cal and metropolitan area networks - Specific requirements - Part 11:
Wireless LAN medium access control (MAC) and physical layer (PHY)
specifications - Am. 6: S1G license exempt operation,” June 2014.
[3] IEEE 802.11, “IEEE standard for information technology - Telecommuni-
cations and information exchange between systems Local and metropoli-
tan area networks, specific requirements, Part 11: WLAN medium access
control (MAC) and physical layer (PHY) specifications,” Mar. 2012.
[4] IEEE 802.11nTM , “IEEE standard for information technology - Telecom-
munications and information exchange between systems - Local and
metropolitan area networks, specific requirements, Part 11: WLAN
medium access control (MAC) and physical layer (PHY) specifications -
Am. 5: Enhancements for higher throughput,” Oct. 2009.
[5] S. H. Aust, “Advanced wireless local area networks in the unlicensed
sub-1 GHz ISM-bands,” diss., TU Delft, The Netherlands, Oct., 2014.
[6] IEEE P802.11acTM /D5.0, “Draft standard for information technology -
telecommunications and information exchange between systems - Local
and metropolitan area networks, specific requirements, Part 11: WLAN
medium access control (MAC) and physical layer (PHY) specifications -
Amendment 4: Enhancements for very high throughput for operation in
bands below 6 GHz,” January 2013.
[7] IEEE 802.11ah, IEEE P802.11 - Task group AH, [on-line, last access:
2014/11/20], http://www.ieee802.org/11/Reports/tgah update.htm.
[8] A. Hrovat, G. Kandus and T. Javornik, “A survey of radio propagation
modeling for tunnels,” IEEE Communications Surveys & Tutorials, vol.
16, no. 2, second quarter 2014, pp. 658-669.
[9] N. Lu and X. Shen, “Scaling laws for throughput capacity and delay
in wireless networks - A survey,” IEEE Communications Surveys &
Tutorials, vol. 16, no.2, second quarter 2014, pp. 642-657.
[10] M. Natkaniec, K. Kosek-Szott, S. Szott and G. Bianchi, “A survey of
medium access mechanisms for providing QoS in ad-hoc networks,” IEEE
Com. Surveys & tutorials, vol. 15, no. 2, 2nd 2013, pp. 592-620.
[11] D. Yang, Y. Xu, M. Gidlund “Wireless coexistence between IEEE 802.11
and.15.4-based networks: A survey,” Int. Journal of Distributed Sensor
Networks, vol. 2011, article ID 912152, April 2011, pp. 1-17.
1553-877X (c) 2015 IEEE. Personal use is permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission. See
http://www.ieee.org/publications_standards/publications/rights/index.html for more information.
13
[12] M. Park, “IEEE 802.11ah specification framework document,” version
14, DCN IEEE 802.11-13/0014r0, May 2013.
[13] Association of Radio Industries and Business, “950 MHz-band telemeter,
telecontrol and data transmission radio equipment for specified low power
radio station,”, ARIB STD-T108 ver. 1.0, Feb. 14, 2012.
[14] S. Aust, “Additional use cases for sub-1 GHz license-exempt frequency
bands,” DCN IEEE802.11-10/1458r0, December 2010.
[15] D. Halasz, “Sub-1 GHz license-exempt use cases,” DCN IEEE 802.11-
10/1044r0, September 2010.
[16] R. Porat, “Link budget,” DCN IEEE 802.11-11/0552r2, April 19, 2011.
[17] D. Halasz, “Sub-1 GHz license-exempt PAR and 5C,” IEEE P802.11
Wireless LANs, DCN IEEE 802.11-10/0001r13, July 2010.
[18] C.-C. Wang, J. Yee, J. Wang, J. Liu, H.C. Ye, and A. Hsu, “Usage cases
for 802.11ah,” DCN IEEE 802.11-11/0341r0, March 14, 2011.
[19] D. Halasz, “Categories of TGah use cases and straw polls,” DCN IEEE
802.11-11/0301r0, March 8, 2011.
[20] R. de Vegt, “Potential compromise for 802.11ah use case document,”
DCN IEEE 802.11-11/0457r0, March 2011.
[21] S. Aust, R.V. Prasad and I.G.M.M. Niemegeers, “Performance evaluation
of sub-1 GHz wireless sensor networks for the smart grid,” 37th Con-
ference on Local Computer Networks (LCN 2012), Clearwater, Florida,
USA, October 22-25, 2012, pp. 292-295.
[22] C.-Y. Ho and C.-Y. Huang, “Energy-saving massive access control
and resource allocation schemes for M2M communications in OFDMA
cellular networks,” IEEE Wireless Communications Letters, vol. 1, no. 3,
June 2012, pp. 209-212.
[23] S. Aust, R.V. Prasad and I.G.M.M. Niemegeers, “IEEE 802.11ah:
Advantages in standards and further challenges for sub-1 GHz Wi-Fi,”
IEEE International Conference on Communications (ICC 2012), Ottawa,
Canada, June 10-15, 2012, pp. 6885-6889.
[24] A. Hazmi, J. Rinne and M. Valkama, “Feasibility study of IEEE
802.11ah radio technology for IoT and M2M use cases,” IEEE GLOBE-
COM 2012 Workshop: Second International Workshop on Machine-
to-Machine Communications- Key to the Future Internet of Things ,
Anaheim California, USA, Dec. 2012, pp. 1687-1692.
[25] L.C. Choo, Z. Lei, “CRC codes for short control frames in IEEE
802.11ah,” 80th IEEE Vehicular Technology Conference (VTC Fall),
Sept. 2014, pp. 1-5.
[26] M. Ghosh, F. LaSita, “Puncturing of CRC codes for IEEE 802.11ah,”
78th IEEE VTC (Fall), Sept. 2013, pp. 1-5.
[27] R.P. Liu, G.J. Sutton, I.B. Collings, “Power save with offset listen inter-
val for IEEE 802.11ah smart grid communications,” IEEE International
Conference on Communications (ICC), June 2013, pp. 4488-4492.
[28] R.P Liu, G.J. Sutton, I.B. Collings, “WLAN power save with offset listen
interval for machine-to-machine communications”, IEEE Transactions on
Wireless Communications, vol. 13, issue: 5, May 2014, pp. 2552-2562.
[29] H.-H. Lin, H.-Y. Wei and R. Vannithamby, “DeepSleep: IEEE 802.11 en-
hancement for energy-harvesting machine-to-machine communications,”
IEEE GLOBECOM 2012, Dec. 2012, pp. 5231-5236.
[30] J.O. Seo, C. Nam, S.G. Yoon, S. Bahk, “Group-based contention in IEEE
802.11ah networks”, Int. Conference on Information and Communication
Technology Convergence (ICTC), Oct. 2014, pp. 709-710.
[31] Y. Yang, S. Roy, “Grouping-based MAC protocols for EV charging data
transmission in smart metering network,” IEEE Journal on Selected Areas
in Communications, vol. 32, issue: 7, July 2014, pp. 1328-1343.
[32] L. Zheng, L. Cai, J. Pan, M. Ni., “Performance analysis of grouping
strategy for dense IEEE 802.11 networks,” IEEE Global Communications
Conference (GLOBECOM), Dec. 2013, pp. 219-224.
[33] MIMOMAX White Paper, “About that MiMOMax data rate! - Ex-
plaining the MiMOMax data rate calculations,” [on-line, last access:
2014/11/20], www.mimomax.com, June 2013.
[34] IEEE Standards Association, “IEEE standard for information technology
- Telecommunications and information exchange between systems -
Wireless LAN medium access control (MAC) and physical layer (PHY)
specifications,” March 2012.
[35] S. Aust and T. Ito, “Sub-1 GHz Wireless LAN Deployment Scenarios
and Design Implications in Rural Areas,” IEEE GLOBECOM 2011,
Houston, Texas, Dec. 2011, pp. 1045-1049.
[36] M. Iwaoka, “IEEE 802.11ah Coverage requirement of industrial process
automation use case,” DCN IEEE 802.11-11/0547, April 2011.
[37] O. Raeesi, J. Pirskanen, A. Hazmi, T. Levanen, M. Valkama, “Perfor-
mance evaluation of IEEE 802.11ah and its restricted access window
mechanism,” IEEE International Conference on Communications Work-
shops (ICC), June 2014, pp. 460-466.
[38] O. Raeesi, J. Pirskanen, A. Hazmi, J. Talvitie, M. Valkama, “Perfor-
mance enhancement and evaluation of IEEE 802.11ah multi-access point
network using restricted access window mechanism,” IEEE International
This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI
10.1109/COMST.2015.2429311, IEEE Communications Surveys & Tutorials
Conference on Distributed Computing in Sensor Systems (DCOSS), May
2014, pp. 287-293.
[39] 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, amendment 6:
Wireless access in vehicular environments, IEEE Std 802.11p, July 2010.
[40] N. Abuali, “Power management in solar-powered long range Wi-Fi test-
bed,” IEEE ICC 2012 Workshop on Cognitive Radio and Cooperation for
Green Networking, June 2012, pp. 5983-5987.
[41] V. Sivaraman, S. Grover, A. Kurusingal, A. Dhamdhere and A. Burdett,
“Experimental study of mobility in the soccer field with application
to real-time athlete monitoring,” , 6th IEEE International Conference
on Wireless and Mobile Computing, Networking and Communications
(WiMob ’10), Oct. 2010, pp. 337-345.
[42] P. López-Matencio, J. Vales Alonso, F.J. González-Castaño, J.L. Sieiro
and J.J. Alcaraz, “Ambient intelligence assistant for running sports based
on k-NN classifiers,” 3rd Conference on Human System Interactions (HSI
’10), Oct. 2010, pp. 605-611.
[43] J. Llosa, I. Vilajosana, X. Vilajosana, N. Navarro, E. Suriñach and
J.M. Marquès, “REMOTE, a wireless sensor network based system to
monitor rowing performance,” Sensors [on-line, last access: 2014/11/20],
www.mdpi.com/journal/sensors, April 2010, pp. 7069-7082.
[44] IEEE, “IEEE 802.24 smart grid TAG,” [on-line, last access: 2014/11/20],
www.ieee802.org.
[45] S. Farahani, “ZigBee wireless networks and transceivers,” Elsevier,
2008.
[46] NIST, “Priority action plan 2, guidelines for assessing wireless standards
for smart grid applications,” ver. 1.0, December 31, 2010.
[47] S. Aust and T. Ito, “Sub-1 GHz wireless LAN propagation path loss
models for urban smart grid applications,” International Conference
on Computing, Networking and Communications (ICNC 2012), Maui,
Hawaii, USA, January 30 - February 2, 2012, pp. 116-120.
[48] K. Mase, “Information and communication technology and electric ve-
hicles - Paving the way towards a smart community,” IEICE Transactions
of Communications, vol. e95-B, no. 6, June 2012, pp. 1902-1910.
[49] NTT DoCoMo, “Petfit: Smart life with your dog,” [on-line, last access:
2014/11/20], https://www.mydocomo.com/onlineshop/products/.
[50] NEC, “M2M serivce: Petfit,” [online], http://jpn.nec.com/press/201402/
20140213 01.html, last access: 2014/11/20.
[51] J. Polastre, J. Hill and D. Culler, “Versatile low power media access for
wireless sensor networks,” 2nd International Conference on Embedded
Network Sensor Systems, Oct. 2010, pp. 3-5.
[52] T. Tanaka, S. Aust and T. Ito, “Enhanced energy consumption reduction
schemes in radio-on-demand WLANs,” 24th Annual IEEE International
Symposium on Personal, Indoor and Mobile Radio Communications
(PIMRC ’13), London, UK, September 2013, pp 1-6.
[53] D. Aguayo, J. Bicket, S. Biswas, G. Judd and R. Morris, “Link-level
measurements form an 802.11b mesh network,” the 2004 Conference on
Applications, Technologies, Architectures, and Protocols for Computer
Communications (SIGCOMM ’04), Nov. 2004, pp. 121-132.
[54] A. Sheth, S. Nedevshi, R. Patra and L. Subramanian, “Packet loss
characterization in Wi-Fi-based long distance networks,” 26th IEEE Inter-
national Conference on Computer Communications (INFOCOM 2007),
Mach 2007, pp. 312-320.
[55] H. El-Sayed, S. Zeadally and M. Boulmalf, “Experimental evaluation
and characterization of long-distance 802.11g links,” 7th International
Conference on Networking (ICN 2008), March 2008, pp. 511-516.
[56] M. Afanasyev, T. Chen, G.M. Voelker and A.C. Snoeren, “Usage patterns
in an urban Wi-Fi network,” IEEE/ACM Transactions on Networking, vol.
18, no. 5, Octc 2010, pp. 1359-1372.
[57] N. Goddemeier, K. Daniel and C. Wietfeld, “Coverage evaluation of
wireless networks for unmanned aerial systems,” IEEE GLOBECOM
Workshop on Wireless Networking for Unmanned Aerial Vehicles, Dec.
2010, pp. 1760-1765.
[58] K. Chebrolu, B. Raman and S. Sen, “Long-distance 802.11b links:
performance measurements and experience,” 12th Annual International
Conference on Mobile Computing and Networking (MobiCom ’06),
March 2006, pp. 74-85.
[59] D. Bri, M. Fernández-Diego, M. Garcia, F. Ramos and J. Lloret, “How
the weather impacts on the performance of an outdoor WLAN,” IEEE
Communications Letters, vol. 16, no. 8, Aug. 2012, pp. 1184-1187.
[60] G. Bianchi, F. Formisano and D. Giustiniano, “802.11b/g link level
measurements for an outdoor wireless campus network,” International
Symposium on a World of Wireless, Mobile and Multimedia Networks
(WoWMoM 2006), Sept. 2006, pp. 1-6.
1553-877X (c) 2015 IEEE. Personal use is permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission. See
http://www.ieee.org/publications_standards/publications/rights/index.html for more information.
14
[61] D. Trinchero, R. Stefanelli and A. Galardini, “Reliability and scalability
analysis of low cost long distance IP-based wireless networks,” ITU-T
Kalaidoscope: Innovations for Digital Inclusions, Oct. 2009, pp. 1-6.
[62] U. Paul, R. Crepaldi, J. Lee, S.J. Lee and R. Etkin, “Characterizing
Wi-Fi link performance in open outdoor networks,” 8th Annual IEEE
Communications Society Conference on Sensor, Mesh and Ad Hoc
Communications and Networks, Oct. 2011, pp. 251-259.
[63] J. S. Seybold, “Introduction to RF propagation”, Wiley, 2005.
[64] A. Ting, D. Chieng and K.H. Kwong, “Capacity and coverage analysis
of rural multi-radio multi-hop network deployment using IEEE802.11n
radios,” 10th IEEE Malaysia International Conference on Communica-
tions (MICC), Oct. 2011, pp. 77-82.
[65] M. O’Droma, Y. Lei, E. Bertran and P. Gilabert, “Analysis of inter-
modulation products and nonlinear distortion in RF OFDM transmitter
systems,” IEEE 69th Vehicular Technology Conference (VTC Spring
2009), April 2009, pp. 1-5.
[66] Buyers guide, “UHF Data Pipeline - New technology promises data rates
of 320 kilobits per second (kbps) in 25-kilohertz channels in the 400 MHz
band,” RadioResource International, May 2009, pp. 12-16.
[67] B. Raman and K. Chebrolu, “Design and evaluation of a new MAC
protocol for long-distance 802.11 mesh networks,” 11th Annual Inter-
national Conference on Mobile Computing and Networking (MobiCom
’05), March 2005, pp. 156-169.
[68] V. Sevani, B. Raman, and P. Joshi, “Implementation-based evaluation
of a full-fledged multihop TDMA-MAC for WiFi mesh networks”, IEEE
Trans. on Mobile Computing, vol. 13, no. 2, Feb. 2014, pp. 392-406.
[69] C.K. Chio, S.W. Ting, K.W. Tam and T.K. Sarkar, “Coverage analysis
of outdoor public Wi-Fi hotspot using full-wave electromagnetic simula-
tion,” IEEE Antennas and Propagation Society International Symposium
(APSURSI), July 2013, pp. 1538-1539.
[70] Y. Zhou, H. Wang, S. Zheng and Z. Z. Lei, “Advances in IEEE
802.11ah standardization for machine-type communications in sub-1 GHz
WLAN,” IEEE International Conference on Communications 2013: IEEE
ICC‘13 - Second IEEE Workshop on Telecommunication Standards: From
Research to Standards, June 2013, pp. 1289-1293.
[71] C.S. Metcalf, T. Camp, M. Colagrosso and O. Chase, “TestbedProfiler:
A validation tool for wireless sensor network testbed deployment,” 35th
IEEE LCN, Oct. 2010, pp. 188-191.
[72] J.-P. Sheu, C.-J. Chang, C.-Y. Sun and W.-K. Hu, “WSNTB: A testbed
for heterogeneous wireless sensor networks,” 1st IEEE International
Conference on Ubi-Media Computing, Aug. 2008, pp. 338-343.
[73] K. Hanada, K. Yamamoto, M. Morikura, K. Ishihara and R. Kudo,
“Game-theoretic analysis of multi-bandwidth channel selection by co-
ordinated APs in WLANs,” IEICE Transactions of Communications, vo.
e96-B, no. 6, June 2013, pp.1277-1287.
[74] K. Ab-Hamid, C.E. Tan and S.P. Lau, “Self-sustainable energy efficient
long range WiFi network for rural communities,” IEEE GLOBECOM
Workshop on Rural Communications-Technologies, Applications, Strate-
gies and Policies (RuralComm 2011), Dec. 2011, pp. 1050-1055.
[75] G. Bernardi, P. Buneman and M.K. Marina, “Tegola tiered mesh network
testbed in rural scotland,”, Mobicom, Oct. 2008, pp. 1-6.
[76] T.V. Prabhakar, “An empirical approach towards zero energy networks
(zen),” dissertation, TU Delft, The Netherlands, 2012.
[77] Y.S. Meng and Y.H. Lee, “Measurements and characterizations of air-to-
ground channel over sea-surface at C-band with low airborne altitudes,”
IEEE Trans. on Vehicular Tech., vol. 60, issue: 4, 2011, pp. 1943-1948.
[78] Y.S. Meng and Y.H. Lee, “Multipath characterization and fade mitigation
of air-to-ground propagation channel over tropical sea-surface at C
band,” 2010 IEEE International Symposium on Antennas and Propagation
(APSURSI ’10), Nov. 2010, pp. 1-4.
[79] C.-M. Cheng, P.-H. Hsiao, H.T. Kung and D. Vlah, “Performance
measurement of 802.11a wireless links from UAV to ground nodes with
various antenna orientations,” 15th International Computer Communica-
tions and Networks (ICCCN ’06), Oct. 2006, pp. 303-308.
[80] N. Ahmed, S.S. Kanhere and S. Jha, “Link characterization for aerial
wireless sensor networks,” IEEE 2011 GLOBECOM, Wireless Network-
ing for Unmanned Autonomous Vehicles, Dec. 2011, pp. 1274-1279.
[81] S. Rohde and C. Wietfeld, “Interference aware positioning of aerial
relays for cell overload and outage compensation,” IEEE Vehicular
Technology Conference (VTC Fall ’12), April 2012, pp. 1-5.
[82] D. Gesbert, H. Bolcskei, D. Gore and A. Paulraj, “Outdoor MIMO wire-
less channels: Models and performance prediction,” IEEE Transactions on
Communication, vol. 50, 2002, pp. 1926-1934.
[83] E.A. Gharavol, Y.-C. Liang and K. Mouthaan, “Robust linear beam-
forming for MIMO relay with imperfect channel state information,” 21st
IEEE International Symposium on Personal Indoor and Mobile Radio
Communications, April 2010, pp. 510-514.
This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI
10.1109/COMST.2015.2429311, IEEE Communications Surveys & Tutorials
[84] S. Aust and T. Ito, “Sub 1 GHz wireless LAN propagation path loss
models for urban smart grid applications”, the International Conference
on Computing, Networking and Communication (ICNC) Workshop on
Communication Technologies Support to the Smart Grid, Maui, Hawaii,
USA, January 2012, pp. 1-8.
[85] H. Ma and S. Roy, “Contention window and transmission opportunity
adaptation for dense IEEE 802.11 WLAN based on loss differentiation,”
IEEE Conference on Communications (ICC 2008), Beijing, China, May
2008, pp. 2556-2560.
[86] IEEE P802.11 - High efficiency WLAN study group - Meeting update,
“Status of IEEE 802.11 HEW study group - High efficiency WLAN
(HEW),” [on-line, last access: 2014/11/20], http://www.ieee802.org/11/
Reports/hew update.htm.
[87] S. Aust, R.V. Prasad and I.G.M.M. Niemegeers, “A framework for
massive access and radio resource management in urban WLANs,”
38th IEEE Conference on Local Computer Networks (LCN), Sydney,
Australia, Oct. 2013, pp. 1-6.
[88] S. Aust, R.V. Prasad and I.G.M.M. Niemegeers, “Codebook selection
strategies in long-range sub-1 GHz WLANs,” Elsevier, Procedia Com-
puter Science, vol. 32, 2014, pp. 133-140.
[89] S. Aust, R.V. Prasad and I.G.M.M. Niemegeers, “Sector-based RTC/CTS
access scheme for high density WLAN sensor networks,” 39th IEEE
Conference on Local Computer Networks (LCN), Edmonton, Canada,
Sept. 2014, pp. 697-701.
[90] 3GPP TS 22.368 V10.1.0, “Service requirements for machine-type
communications,” July 2010.
[91] 3GPP TR 23.888 V0.5.1, “System improvement for machine-type com-
munications,” July 2010.
[92] IEEE 80216p-10 005, “Machine-to-machine (M2M) communication
study report”, May 2010.
[93] S. Aust, R.V. Prasad and I.G.M.M. Niemegeers, “Performance study of
MIMO-OFDM platform in narrow-band sub-1 GHz wireless LANs,” in
the Proceedings of the WiOpt/WinMee, 2013, pp. 1-5.
[94] S. Aust, R. V. Prasad, and I. G.M.M. Niemegeers, “Analysis of the
performance boundaries of sub-1 GHz WLANs in the 920 MHz ISM-
band,” the 10th International Symposium on Wireless Communication
Systems 2013, Ilmenau, Germany. August 2013, pp. 1-6.
[95] S. Aust, R.V. Prasad and I.G.M.M. Niemegeers, “Advances in wireless
M2M and IoT: Rapid SDR-prototyping of IEEE 802.11ah,” in the
Proceedings of the 39th IEEE Conference on Local Computer Networks
(LCN), Demo Abstract, Sept. 8-11, 2014, Edmonton, Canada, pp. 1-3.
[96] H. Murata, S. Yoshida, K. Yamamoto, D. Umehara, S. Denno
and M. Morikura, “Software radio-based distributed multi-user MIMO
testbed: Towards Green Wireless Communications,” IEICE Transactions
on Fundamentals, vol. e96-a, no. 1, Jan. 2013, pp. 247-254.
[97] S. Uludag, T. Imboden and K. Akkaya, “A taxonomy and evaluation for
developing 802.11-based wireless mesh network testbeds,” International
Journal of Communication Systems, vol. 25, no. 8, pp. 963-990, 2011.
Stefan Aust received the Dipl.-Ing. degree in Elec-
tronics and Information Technology Engineering
from the University of Bremen, Germany, in 2001.
From 2001 to 2005, he was a research associate at
the ComNets Group, University of Bremen, working
on the European Union funded projects xMotion
and NOMAD. He was working in the German
BMBF funded project IPonAir together with the
Siemens AG, Munich and Berlin. From 2005 to
2008 Stefan was with ATR International in Kyoto,
Japan, as group leader in the Japanese Government
funded project Cognitive Radio. Since 2008, he is with NEC Communication
Systems, Ltd. in Kawasaki, Japan. In 2012 he was promoted to the R&D
Manager position. Stefan received his PhD degree from the Faculty of
Electrical Engineering, Mathematics and Computer Science, at the Delft
University of Technology, The Netherlands. His doctoral research focused
on the physical layer and medium access control in long-range 920 MHz
WLANs. His research interests also include information dissemination in
smart sensor networks, high efficiency wireless WLANs and automotive
software platforms. He has been an organizing committee member of IEEE
LCN and goSMART. Stefan is active in standardization, including IEEE
DySPAN-SC, IEEE 802.11, and .15. Stefan is member of the IEEE and IEICE.
1553-877X (c) 2015 IEEE. Personal use is permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission. See
http://www.ieee.org/publications_standards/publications/rights/index.html for more information.
15
R. Venkatesha Prasad completed PhD from Indian
Institute Science (IISc), Bangalore, India in 2004.
During his PhD research, a scalable VoIP confer-
encing platform was designed. Many new ideas
including a conjecture, were formulated and tested
by developing an application suite based on the
research findings. The work involved understanding
of network protocols, application design and human
computer interface. Part of the thesis lead to a startup
venture, Esqube Communication Solutions. He was
leading a team of up to ten engineers, developing
many real-time applications including bridging anonymous VoIP calls called
Click-to-Talk for portals. While at Esqube, eight patent applications and three
PCT applications were filed along with his colleagues. He worked for Esqube
from 2006 to 2009 on a part-time basis as a senior design consultant. In
2005, he joined TUDelft as a PostDoc to work on the EU FP7 Magnet
Project and the Dutch project PNP-2008 on Personal Networks (PNs). His
work involved evolving PN network architecture and foreign communication
with TUDelft team. The work resulted in an ECMA report. He also started
working on Cognitive Radio Networks (CRNs) and 60GHz networks for
future homes. He is contributing to IEEE standards on CRNs. Currently,
he is involved in Internet of Things (IoT), Cyber Physical Systems (CPS)
and energy harvesting networks. He is working on EU funded iCore project
on IoTs. At TUDelft, he has been supervising PhD and MSc students. The
work at TUDelft resulted in 150+ publications. He was co-founder and
one of the main organizers of successful International Workshop E2Nets in
conjunction with IEEE ICC 2010-15. He is General Co-Chair, IEEE ICC
2015 Workshop on Next Generation Green ICT. He was Track Chair of
Cognitive Radio and Spectrum Sensing of IEEE VTC2013-Spring in Dresden,
is a Tutorial Chair for IEEE Globecom-2015. He was TPC chair of IEEE
Symposium on Communications and Vehicular Technology in the Benelux
(SCVT) 2014. He is also contributing to the academic community by leading
many IEEE activities, such as memberships of standards boards, leading
technical committees, etc., apart from reviewing and organizing conferences
and workshops. He is also a member of IEEE TCCN, AHSNTC, TCGCC and
TCCC. He is a senior member of IEEE and ACM.
Ignas G. M. M. Niemegeers received a degree in
electrical engineering from the University of Ghent,
Belgium, in 1970, the MScE degree in computer
engineering in 1972, and the PhD degree from Pur-
due University in West Lafayette, Indiana, in 1978.
From 1978 to 1981, he was a designer of packet
switching networks at Bell Telephone Manufacturing
Cy, Antwerp, Belgium. From 1981 to 2002, he was
a professor in the Computer Science and the Electri-
cal Engineering Departments, University of Twente,
Enschede, The Netherlands. From 1995 to 2001,
he was the scientific director of the Centre for Telematics and Information
Technology at the University of Twente. Since May 2002, he has been the
chair of the Wireless and Mobile Communications Group at Delft University
of Technology, where he heads the Telecommunications Department. He is a
member of the Expert Advisory Group of the European technology platform
eMobility and IFIP TC-6 on Networking. He has (co)authored nearly 300
scientific publications and coauthored a book on personal networks.