This article has been accepted for inclusion in a future issue of this journal.
Content is final as presented, with the exception of pagination.
Sinan Kurt and bulent Tavli
Path-Loss Modeling
for Wireless Sensor
Networks
A review of models and comparative evaluations.
P
ropagation models are used to abstract the actual propaga-
tion characteristics of electromagnetic waves utilized for
conveying information in a compact form (i.e., a model
with a small number of parameters). The correct modeling
of propagation and path loss is of paramount importance in wire-
less sensor network (WSN) system design and analysis [1]. Most
of the important performance metrics commonly employed for
WSNs, such as energy dissipation, route optimization, reliability,
and connectivity, are affected by the utilized propagation model.
However, in many studies on WSNs, overly simplistic and unre-
alistic propagation models are used. One of the reasons for the
utilization of such impractical propagation models is the lack of
awareness of experimentally available WSN-specific propaga-
tion and path-loss models. In this article, necessary succint
background information is given on general wireless propagation
modeling, and salient WSN-specific constraints on path-loss
modeling are summarized. Building upon the provided back-
ground, an overview of the experimentally verified propagation
models for WSNs is presented, and quantitative comparisons of
propagation models employed in WSN research under various
scenarios and frequency bands are provided.
Digital Object Identifier 10.1109/MAP.2016.2630035
Date of publication: 6 January 2017
2 1045-9243/17©2017Ieee
WSN OVERVIEW
The idea of WSNs was born as a vision, mainly due to the needs
of the military, more than five decades ago. In fact, pioneering
WSN deployments were used during the Vietnam conflict [2].
Indeed, the mythical air-dropped sensors scenario was real-
ized in the jungles of Southeast Asia. However, the technology
of that era was both expensive and bulky, and it took more than
four decades (at the dawn of the 21st century) for the enabling
platforms (e.g., Mica motes) to become affordable, small sized,
versatile, and capable enough to perform basic communication,
sensing, and computation functionalities. There has been an
explosive growth in research and development efforts on WSNs
both in academia and industry for more than a decade. Current-
ly, the vision of WSNs is transforming into a mature technology
with applications in such areas as telecommunications, precision
agriculture, logistics, smart grids, security, surveillance, habitat
monitoring, and health. Because WSN research is becoming
more and more practical and application oriented rather than
purely theoretical and abstract, the level of realism in all aspects
of WSN research is getting more important. The utilization of
accurate path-loss models is, therefore, of utmost importance in
WSN research.
A typical WSN is composed of a base station and a plurality of
sensor nodes spatially distributed over a target region to remotely
february 2017 IEEE AntEnnAs & ProPAgAtIon MAgAzInE
 This article has been accepted for inclusion in a future issue of this journal. Content is final as presented, with the exception of pagination.
monitor the desired phenomena [3]. It is possible that multiple
base stations and/or actuators are also utilized in WSNs. Most
of the research activities on WSNs (e.g., routing, medium access
control, position estimation, synchronization, lifetime optimiza-
tion, modulation, error correction, and security) are implicitly
related to propagation media and accurate propagation models
of signals among sensor nodes [4]. The accuracy and precision of
the employed propagation model affect the coverage area, the
selected transmission power, and the lifetime of a network [5].
The realistic reconstruction of WSN topologies is possible if
the path-loss values among the sensor nodes are computed via
the proper propagation models [6]. The design of WSN routing
protocols by employing simplistic path-loss models would not
perform as expected under practical applications, and the char-
acterizations of these protocols under such assumptions would be
questionable at best. The correct modeling of the path loss is of
the utmost importance in determining the signal-to-noise ratio,
which, in turn, is the determining factor in transmission power
control [7], [8]. The WSN lifetime is significantly affected by the
optimal assignment of transmission power levels and the extent of
retransmissions due to packet failures, which are all dependent on
the correct modeling of the path loss. In general, the path loss is
not deterministic. Instead, it is stochastic. Furthermore, it can be
different over time and may change rapidly according to the used
frequency/scenario. Therefore, path-loss models generally include
statistical descriptors (e.g., mean values and standard deviations).
In traditional wireless communications (e.g., cellular com-
munications), well-established propagation models exist that
are well suited to specific applications that are experimentally
corrected and adopted to be used with high accuracy [9]–[17].
Nevertheless, some of the models for the WSN case are used
without awareness of the assumptions made in that model, and
consequently, an unsuitable model could be used [18], which
can lead to flawed, if not unrealistic, design and analysis of
WSN protocols and architectures.
In the wireless communications literature, basic propagation
mechanisms and models for both indoor and outdoor environ-
ments are investigated, and various empirical and statistical
models are presented for specific application areas [19]–[21].
However, these models are not proposed for considering WSN
applications scenarios. There are several survey/review papers
providing a limited discussion on WSN propagation models, but
the main targets of these papers are network behavior, network
topology, and system-level modeling [22]; general characteris-
tics and applications [18], [23]; WSN simulation, emulation, or
debugging tools [24]–[26]; and cross-layer approaches for WSN
problems [27]–[30]. The importance of a physical layer for signal
propagation effects, signal detection, modulation, power efficien-
cy, frequency selection, and generation is emphasized in [3]. The
different aspects of signal propagation are investigated, and the
estimation of link quality metrics is presented in [31]. Further-
more, there are survey papers for specific WSN application areas,
such as underground WSNs [32]. Nevertheless, when it comes to
available propagation models to be used in terrestrial WSN appli-
cations, a gap seems to exist. For example, the following questions
are left unanswered. Why can’t we use the propagation models
IEEE AntEnnAs & ProPAgAtIon MAgAzInE february 2017
developed for cellular systems directly in WSNs? What are the
differences? We believe that providing the necessary background
to be able answer these questions is of the utmost importance. To
the best of our knowledge, except for a technical report on ter-
restrial wireless communications that provides a limited overview
of models for wireless communications [33], there is no review
paper on propagation models for terrestrial WSNs.
A focused review/tutorial on WSN propagation models will
be beneficial for most WSN researchers and specifically for
researchers who are not experts on propagation mechanisms,
approximations, and models. In fact, the targeted audience for
this article includes researchers working on WSNs who do not
have the necessary background on radio propagation modeling
in a terrestrial WSN environment. In this article, we have three
main targets, itemized as follows.
■ A brief introduction to propagation models for wireless
communications is given, and specific theoretical propaga-
tion models commonly used for outdoor WSN applications
are explained to provide a background on propagation
mechanisms and to assess the applicability of well-known
propagation models used for traditional wireless communi-
cations to WSNs.
■ Available outdoor WSN-specific large-scale propagation
model alternatives reported to be more accurate when com-
pared to pure theoretical (analytical) models are presented
in a systematic fashion to provide awareness of inaccuracies
of the commonly utilized models.
■ Quantitative comparisons of propagation models are pre-
sented under various scenarios and frequencies to iden-
tify the extent of modeling errors and guide researchers in
adopting the appropriate path-loss models.
Note that, in this article, we consider only outdoor WSN
applications with stationary near-ground sensor nodes in the
868-MHz and 2.4- and 3.5-GHz bands. Therefore, our focus is
on outdoor propagation modeling. However, WSN applications
are not limited to the cases we consider in this article. In fact,
WSN application domains are much wider (e.g., intravehicular,
intervehicular, indoor, and underground WSN deployments),
and our treatment of WSN path-loss modeling does not include
all WSN application scenarios and domains. For example, there
is a rich literature on near-ground propagation modeling for
indoor scenarios [34]–[37].
PATH LOSS IN WIRELESS COMMUNICATION
Propagation models are mainly focused on estimating the aver-
age signal strength drop at different transmitter–receiver (T–R)
separations and the signal strength variability in close proxim-
ity to the specific T–R separation [38]. The variation of signal
strength is due to the changes in the propagation path between
a transmitter and a receiver. The relative movements of the
transmitter and/or receiver lead to signal strength variations.
Furthermore, even if both the transmitter and the receiver are
static, the signal strength can also change due to moving scatter-
ers or shadowing objects that affect the propagation environment.
With respect to spatial and time scales, propagation models can
be grouped in two classes, i.e., large scale and small scale [39].
3
 This article has been accepted for inclusion in a future issue of this journal. Content is final as presented, with the exception of pagination.
Large-scale propagation models characterize the mean signal
strength due to large distance T–R movements. Large-scale
propagation effects are a power spread of radiated power in the
propagation channel and shadowing, which is caused by obstacles
on the path between the transmitter and the receiver. Large-
scale propagation models are very useful in coverage estimations.
On the other hand, small-scale (or fading) models try to char-
acterize rapid fluctuations in the signal strength over relatively
short spatial changes (a few wavelengths) and/or short time dura-
tions (i.e., spatial and/or time scale is/are short) [40]. This article
mainly focuses on the large-scale propagation models.
The free-space propagation model must be understood as a
basis on which to comprehend more advanced models. The free-
space propagation model can be used when there are no obstacles
that can create paths except the line-of-sight (LOS) path from the
transmitter to the receiver (e.g., satellite communications) [41].
More precisely stated, the free-space propagation model is accu-
rate when there are no objects at all besides the transmitter and
the receiver because the existence of any other object could result
in reflected paths. This model is applicable only when the receiver
is in the far field of the transmitter antenna (e.g., the transmitter
receiver distance is larger than the Fraunhofer distance) [19]. The
Fraunhofer distance, d f , is given by
2
d f = 2D ,
m
where D is the largest dimension of the transmitter antenna and
m is the wavelength. The model is based on the Friis transmis-
sion equation [42], in which spherical propagation is considered
and the total received power is equal to the power density times
the effective area of receiver antenna
P 8 cos i i
Pr = tot 2 A e,
4rd
where Ptot = Pt G t, Pt is the transmitter power, G t is the trans-
mitter antenna gain, and d is the T–R distance. The effective
area of receiver antenna, A e, is related to the physical size of the
antenna and given by
2
A e = m G r,
4r
where G r is the receiver antenna gain and m is the wavelength.
Substituting (3) into (2), we get the free-space propagation
model as
Pt G t G r m 2
Pr = . (4)
(4r) 2 d 2
For the sake of completeness, system losses (L) can also
be incorporated into the propagation model (e.g., absorption
[19]). Equation (4) shows that the received power falls off with
the square of the T–R distance. Besides clear LOS propaga-
tion, obstacles may exist (e.g., reflecting surfaces) on the path
between the transmitter and the receiver that necessitate the
inclusion of other propagation mechanisms affecting signal
propagation. Basic propagation mechanisms can be grouped
into reflection, scattering, and diffraction. The importance
4 february 2017
of these mechanisms comes from the fact that they result in
multiple copies of the transmitted signals, each having different
amplitudes and phases, when they reach the receiver. The com-
posite signal obtained at the receiver is the sum of the copies
arriving from different paths. This may improve or degrade the
LOS signal depending on the phases of each signal received
from different paths, and the amplitudes of the signals define
the level of improvement or degradation.
Reflection occurs when a propagating wave is incident on
an object that has large dimensions compared to the wave-
length (i.e., a relatively smooth surface). The characteristics of
a reflecting surface are frequency dependent (i.e., the smooth-
ness of the surface changes with the frequency of interest). For
example, stucco may be considered as smooth for low frequen-
cies, but it is rough at millimeter-wave frequencies. Generally
speaking, below a few gigahertz, building surfaces and walls
are examples of reflecting objects, ignoring some microstruc-
tures, such as windowsills. However, if the transmitted wave is
incident on a rough surface or on a large number of obstacles
with small dimensions compared to the wavelength, then such
interaction is known as scattering because wavefronts spread
out or diffuse. It should be noted that scattering causes reradi-
ation in all directions, which could help to fill coverage holes,
especially at millimeter-wave frequencies. If the maximum
(1) protuberance of a surface is larger than the critical roughness
level, then the reflection coefficient of the surface should be
multiplied by a scattering loss factor. The Rayleigh criterion
is used to define the critical roughness of a surface to model
the scattering effect [43]. Using the angle of incidence, i i, the
critical roughness level is given by
m
hc = . (5)
(2)
Diffraction occurs at the edge of an obstacle that blocks the
T–R path (the edge of an obstacle can be sharp or rounded, e.g.,
diffraction around a sphere [44] or a cylinder [45]). Even if there
is no LOS T–R path, by means of diffracted waves, a receiver
can get the transmitted waves. Treetops, building edges, and
hills are examples of edges that result in diffraction. As the oper-
(3) ation frequency increases, the diffraction loss increases. Indeed,
the effects of diffraction are dependent on various factors, such
as the correlation length of the height variations [46]. Neverthe-
less, the diffraction loss increases as the blockage height of the
obstacle on the T–R path increases.
When modeling wave propagation for wireless communica-
tions, the aforementioned mechanisms should be taken into
account, depending on the positions of the transmitter and the
receiver, the presence of obstacles, and the environmental char-
acteristics. Furthermore, understanding these phenomena helps
to analyze the trends observed in experimental data.
Considering the overall effects, the free-space propagation
model alone can be highly misleading for most of the radio
channels for terrestrial communication and specifically for
WSNs. Before investigating propagation model alternatives for
WSNs, three well-known wireless communication path-loss
models are presented in the following sections.
IEEE AntEnnAs & ProPAgAtIon MAgAzInE
 This article has been accepted for inclusion in a future issue of this journal. Content is final as presented, with the exception of pagination.
TWO-RAY (GROUND-REFLECTION) MODEL
Considering direct-path and ground-reflected waves together, the
two-ray model produces a useful formulation based on geometric
optics (see Figure 1). Earth is assumed to be flat in the model. To
calculate the power at the receiver, the vector sum of the LOS
E-field, E LOS, and the reflected E-field, E C , can be used.
The reflection coefficient of the surface, C, is given by the
following equations for incidence from free space to the ground
for parallel and perpendicular polarized waves, respectively:
- f r sin i i + f r - cosi 2i
C< = , (6)
f r sin i i + f r - cos i 2i
sin i i - f r - cos i 2i
C= = , (7)
sin i i + f r - cos i 2i
where f r is the relative permittivity of the ground that ranges
from 4 to 25 according to the ground properties. For small val-
ues of i i independent of f r , the magnitude of C approaches 1.
For large values of d, the magnitudes of both E C and ELOS will
be equal as d 1 /d 2 approaches unity. Under these assumptions,
the phase difference will be the important factor.
Under the assumption that d is large enough, the received
power related to the square of the electric field is calculated
as
h 2t h r2
Pr = Pt G t G r . (8)
d4
Therefore, the path loss (in dB) can be expressed by the two-ray
model as
PL = 40 log d - 10 (log G t + log G r + 2 log h t + 2 log h r) . (9)
Note that, for low d values, the assumptions of the two-ray
model are not valid. The threshold distance after which the 1/d 4
power decay occurs (d b) can be obtained as
4h t h r
db = . (10)
m
Although the two-ray model is an elegant theoretical model,
it does not cover all mechanisms involved in electromagnetic
wave propagation. For example, if the antennas are very near
the ground, then the path-loss estimation accuracy of the two-
ray model deteriorates significantly [47]. To improve the theo-
retical models, empirical approaches based on the curve fitting
of the measured data can be used. In fact, empirical models
are generally more advantageous because they can capture the
effects of many propagation mechanisms, even the hidden ones
(i.e., the ones that are not explicitly accounted for). The accuracy
of an empirical model is very much dependent on the assump-
tions on the actual path-loss mechanisms. For example, path-
loss models with multiple breakpoints are more accurate than
one-slope models, as the actual measurements exhibit multiple
breakpoints [48]. Furthermore, empirical model parameters are
different at LOS and nonline-of-sight (NLOS) scenarios; yet, in
both cases, the path loss is a probabilistic function of the dis-
tance and antenna heights [49].
IEEE AntEnnAs & ProPAgAtIon MAgAzInE february 2017
Transmitter
LOS Wave
d1 Receiver
ht Reflected Wave
d2 hr
θi
d
FIGURE 1. a two-ray model illustration: (a) the ground plain
(path loss), (b) park (path loss), and (c) university yard (path loss).
LOG-DISTANCE PATH-LOSS MODEL
By merging theoretical results and field measurements, it is
found that the average received signal power exhibits a logarith-
mic decrease with the T–R distance. In its general form, the log-
distance model is expressed as
PL (avg) = PL (d 0) + 10n log ( d ) , (11)
d0
where PL (avg) is in decibels, n is the path-loss rate, and PL (d 0)
is the path loss at a reference distance (d 0) in the proximity to the
transmitter. d 0 is usually taken as 1 m, 100 m, or 1 km according
to the application ranges of the model. PL (d 0) is sometimes set
to the free-space path loss at d 0 or, alternatively, can be deter-
mined by the measurement at d 0 . The loss rate n depends on
the environment, and it is in the range of 2–6 [50]. For the free-
space and the two-ray models, the n values are 2 and 4, respec-
tively. The value of n increases as the frequency gets higher and
decreases with increasing antenna heights [12]. Generally, cases
with n values higher than 4 are observed for indoor or shadowed
outdoor environments. For example, n = 4.96 is reported for
European fixed forest environments [51].
LOG-NORMAL SHADOWING
Both the two-ray and log-distance models are deterministic
models, and they give radially symmetric path-loss values.
However, there are random variations in the path loss due to
environmental clutter, resulting from object blockage in the
propagation path or from changes in reflecting and scattering
objects. As a result, the path loss at different locations having
the same T–R distance can differ considerably. Furthermore,
the measured power along a straight line from the transmitter
does not exactly fit the log-distance characteristics. Therefore,
the nondeterministic characteristics of the path loss should be
captured by using statistical models. The most common model
for the characterization of nondeterministic effects is log-normal
shadowing [52]. The path loss in decibels is given as
PL (d) = PL (d 0) + 10n log ( d ) + X v , (12)
d0
where X v is a zero-mean Gaussian distributed random vari-
able with standard deviation v (both in dB). In practical appli-
cations, n and v values are computed by using the linear
5
 This article has been accepted for inclusion in a future issue of this journal. Content is final as presented, with the exception of pagination.
regression of the measured data. The difference between the
measured data and the estimated path loss is minimized. The
objective of the minimization is usually chosen as mean-square
error minimization.
WSN CONSTRAINTS
Wireless communication systems, such as satellite, cellular,
ultrahigh-frequency, and very-high-frequency band radios, usu-
ally have well-established theoretical and experimental propaga-
tion models [15]. Most of these models are improved in time by
incorporating correction factors obtained by the results of exten-
sive field measurements [14], [53]. Utilizing one or more of these
mature models in WSNs directly is not a feasible option due the
fact that WSNs have their own set of constraints that are not
compatible with the assumptions made in most of the traditional
wireless communication systems. In other words, WSN-specific
propagation models require consideration of the constraints
imposed by the nature of WSN use cases and scenarios, item-
ized in the following.
■ Low antenna heights: There are many WSN applications for
both military and civilian purposes. In some of these WSN
deployments, the antennas are not near the ground (e.g.,
military WSN scenarios where the base station is airborne
and civilian scenarios, such as smart cities, infrastructure
monitoring, and solar panel WSNs). However, in a signifi-
cant portion of WSN deployment scenarios, a large num-
ber of small-form-factor sensor nodes are assumed to be
placed on the ground. Obviously, the antennas used in these
devices are standing not more than a few meters above the
ground [54]. Although it is possible that the base station
and/or some of the sensor nodes can be positioned at a high-
er elevation, most of the sensors are directly on the ground.
Therefore, propagation models that assume antenna heights
(both for the transmitter and the receiver) higher than a few
meters are not directly applicable to such WSN deployment
scenarios.
■ Low transmission power: The transmission power level in
WSN platforms is comparatively lower than many other
wireless communication systems (e.g., the typical maximum
transmission level in WSNs is in the order of 100 mW)
[55], [56]. Therefore, the transmission ranges, typically, are
significantly lower than the transmission ranges of most of
the low-data-rate wireless communications systems (e.g., a
terrestrial trunked radio [57]).
■ Stationary network topology: Although mobile sensor nodes
or mobile base stations are used in some WSN scenarios, in
most WSN scenarios, the sensor nodes are assumed to be
stationary (not moving) [3]; therefore, the channel models
that capture the effects of the relative mobility between
the transmitter and the receiver are not necessary in static
WSNs (e.g., the impact of the Doppler effect is negligible).
■ Directivity of antennas: The use of omnidirectional anten-
nas is the usual assumption in WSNs. However, the assump-
tion of a perfect omnidirectional radiation pattern is not
realistic for WSNs, which consist of inexpensive tiny sensor
platforms [6], [58].
6 february 2017
In the following section, we present propagation models
used for WSN applications.
WSN PROPAGATION MODEL ALTERNATIVES
One of the most widely used propagation models for WSNs is
the free-space propagation model given in (4), which can be
further simplified as
P0
Pr (d) = , (13)
d
( )2
d0
where P0 is a reference power measured at a reference distance
from the transmitter (d 0) . The simplicity of the model makes it
popular. This model is used to account for the energy dissipation
of routing protocol simulations focusing on the network lifetime
and energy efficiency [59]–[62].
SIMPLIFIED TWO-SLOPE, TWO-RAY MODEL
An improvement upon the free-space model is the two-slope,
two-ray model, which is among the most popular models used
in WSN research [63]. A threshold (d b) is used for the T–R dis-
tance, and, depending on the distance, either the d 2 path loss
^ d 1 d b h or the d 4 path loss ^ d $ d b h is utilized. Although the
assumptions and values used in [63] can be argued, the model
proposed is much more realistic for outdoor WSN applications
than the free-space model. Therefore, this model is also widely
used in WSN research [61]. Nevertheless, this model does not
account for many important parameters, such as the effects of
surface reflectivity, antenna patterns, and heights.
To the best of our knowledge, there is no other WSN
propagation model that has, arguably, attained the level of
consensus achieved by the aforementioned two-slope, two-ray
model. Unfortunately, the commonly used one is too simplis-
tic to cover even the effects that can be modeled with slight
modifications. Recently, there have been various field experi-
ments leading to many useful WSN propagation models using
sensor platforms commonly employed in WSNs. Some of
them attempted to determine the effects of parameters such
as antenna heights and T–R distances [64]. The common attri-
butes of the WSN-specific path-loss models in the literature
are itemized as follows.
1) The average radio signal strength drop correlates with the
transmission distance.
2) The elevation of antennas reduces the reflection and obstruc-
tion effects.
3) There are random variations in the path loss.
The following sections present the alternative propagation
models used by researchers for WSN applications and shown to
be more accurate than these two basic models.
ONE-SLOPE LOG-NORMAL MODEL
The one-slope log-normal model employs (12), which can be
used as an analytical model by utilizing certain predetermined
values for PL (d 0), n, and v. For example, in [65], these param-
eters are taken as PL (d 0) = 55 dB, d 0 = 1 m, n = 4, and
v = 4. Although these values can be used as references, for the
IEEE AntEnnAs & ProPAgAtIon MAgAzInE
 This article has been accepted for inclusion in a future issue of this journal. Content is final as presented, with the exception of pagination.
sake of precision and accuracy, it is better to utilize parameter
values accurately characterizing the path loss for the specific
scenario [i.e., PL (d 0) , n, and v cannot be determined accu-
rately without taking into account scenario-dependent inputs
like antenna heights and operating frequency].
In [66] and [67], one-slope models based on experiments con-
ducted at 868-MHz and 2.4-GHz bands, respectively, are pre-
sented. For the measurements at 868 MHz, the transmitter and
receiver antenna heights are fixed at 13 cm. The transmitter uses
a constant transmit power level, and the distance between the
transmitter and the receiver is varied to obtain signal strength
values as a function of the T–R distance. In fact, measurements
are taken at 0.5-m increments up to 3 m, at 1-m increments
between 3 and 10 m, and at 2-m increments for distances
beyond 10 m. The farthest distance measurements are termi-
nated is the point where the receive power is below −85 dBm.
For spatial averaging, measurements are repeated at five differ-
ent points within a 50-cm diameter area centered at each of the
original measurement points. For temporal averaging, five time
samples are taken at each position. Spatial and temporal averag-
ing is performed on raw data to eliminate fluctuations. By using
the least-squares curve fitting, the parameters of the one-slope
model are determined from the measured and processed data.
For the measurements at 2.4 GHz, three pairs of antenna
heights are used (i.e., h t /h r are 1 m/1 m, 3 cm/1 m, and 3 cm/2 m)
[67]. Actually, two transmitter antenna heights of 1 and 3 cm
and two receiver antenna heights of 1 and 2 m are employed.
The measurements are taken in 1-m increments up to 10 m and
in 2-m increments between 10 and 100 m. At each original mea-
surement point, data are collected in ten extra locations (within
a 10-cm distance from the original point) for spatial averaging.
Twenty samples are taken at each point for temporal averaging.
Linear regression employing the least-squares method is used to
obtain the parameters of the one-slope model.
TWO-SLOPE LOG-NORMAL MODEL
In addition to the one-slope model, in [66] and [67], the param-
eters of two-slope models at 868-MHz and 2.4-GHz bands,
respectively, are also extracted from the field measurements
described in the “One-Slope Log-Normal Model” section. In [66],
the field measurements at three different outdoor environments
are reported. The proposed two-slope model is expressed as
PL (d) = )
PL (d 01) + 10n 1 log (d) + X v1 if d # d b
, (14)
PL (d 02) + 10n 2 log (d) + X v2 if d 2 d b
where the model given in (12) is used with different slope
regions separated at a breakpoint distance d b . It is shown
that the two-slope model fits better to the measured data
than the one-slope model. Three important observations on
path-loss modeling are reported in [66]. First, d b changes with
the environment even when h t and h r are fixed, which can
be explained by the fact that Fresnel zone interception with
the ground changes for different environments. Second, the
maximum coverage estimations with the two-slope model are
more restrictive. Third, the path-loss exponents (n 1, n 2) com-
puted for three different environments, i.e., a slightly curved
IEEE AntEnnAs & ProPAgAtIon MAgAzInE february 2017
grass park, a huge ground plain (quasi-ideal flat ground), and
a university yard surrounded by four-story buildings, are (2.09,
4.01), (2.34, 3.73), and (2.76, 4.00), respectively. As in the case
of the estimation of the parameters of the one-slope model, the
estimation of the parameters of the two-slope model is accom-
plished by least-squares curve fitting. To validate the accuracy
of the one-slope and two-slope models constructed based on
the experimental data, simulations with 100 nodes are per-
formed. The metric used for validation is the average number
of neighbors per node. The simulation results reveal that the
two-slope model achieves significantly higher accuracy than
the one-slope model.
In [67], the measurement results obtained at 2.4 GHz by the
methodology presented in the “One-Slope Log-Normal Model”
section are used to estimate the parameters of the two-slope
model through the least-squares method. The results of [67]
also confirm that the model given in (14) has superior estima-
tion accuracy over that of the one-slope model for three differ-
ent scenarios. In fact, the estimation accuracy of the path-loss
models is verified through the independently measured data at
two sites (i.e., the measurement data used to extract the model
parameters are not used in the verification). The estimation
errors of the one-slope and two-slope models are found to be in
the 5.17–20.45- and 0.28–6.66-dB intervals, respectively. Add-
ing different sets of antenna heights for the measurements, it is
observed that the breakpoint of the two-slope model is in accor-
dance with the value of the breakpoint estimated by the two-ray
model given in (10). Although the break-point values change
slightly from scenario to scenario, it is shown that the dominant
parameters affecting the value of the breakpoint are h t , h r, and
m. As the antenna heights decrease, the breakpoint moves closer
to the transmitter antenna.
TWO-RAY MODEL
A propagation model based on the two-ray ground path-loss
model to simulate the physical layer characteristics of IEEE
Standard 802.15.4 is proposed in [68]. The proposed model
takes the antenna gains and heights into account (8). The mea-
surement results reported in [56] (at 1-m antenna heights of
the transmitter and the receiver) are used for verification. The
model is simulated by using the Tiny Operating System Simula-
tor (TOSSIM) and compared with two available TOSSIM mod-
els: 1) a simple model that only assumes all nodes are connected
and 2) a lossy model, in which link connectivity is decided by a
random number. The results of the comparative analysis reveal
that there are significant differences between the two-ray
ground path-loss model and the other models.
VARIABLE SOIL-REFLECTIVITY MODEL
Subterranean layers can greatly impact near-ground propagation
[69]. In [70], a variable soil-reflectivity (VSR) model is proposed
based on the two-ray model by taking the reflective index of
soil and the directivity of the transmitter and receiver antennas
into account. The proposed model targets outdoor applica-
tions where sensor nodes are placed at a given height above the
ground and the soil surface is smooth, which is generally the
7
 This article has been accepted for inclusion in a future issue of this journal. Content is final as presented, with the exception of pagination.

case for WSN-monitoring applications on agricultural crop fields
[71]. The proposed VSR model is expressed as
c 1 + R D + 2RD cos (d) m,
2 2
P0
Pr =
d 2 (r/d) (r/d)
where P0 is the power at a reference distance; R is the reflectiv-
ity of the surface; D is the directivity of the antennas; d and r
are the LOS and reflected-wave path lengths, respectively; and
d is the phase difference between these two paths. The model
is verified by the field measurements at 1.4-m antenna heights
for both the transmitter and the receiver. Comparisons of the
proposed model with the free-space and two-ray models are
performed for different reflection coefficients.
FREE-SPACE OUTDOOR MODEL
In [72], a free-space outdoor model (FOM) is proposed where
the ground-reflection path, antenna pattern irregularity, and
uncertainty in path loss are taken into consideration. FOM path-
loss formulation can be expressed as
Pr (d) = Pt c m m c K 21 + K 22 C 2 + 2K 2 C cos ( 2r DL) m, (16)
2
4rd m
Pr (d) = Pr (d) + X v ( Pr),
where Pr is the mean value for the received signal; X v models
the uncertainty in path loss; C is the ground-reflection coef-
ficient; K 1 and K 2 are coefficients to reflect antenna pattern
irregularities for LOS and reflected paths, respectively; and
DL is the difference between these two paths. Actually, (16)
and (17) are constructed by synthesizing four components. The
first two components are free-space propagation and ground
reflection, which are both analytical models. Indeed, the basic
form of (16) is created by using these two components, analyti-
cally. The third component is the receive signal strength (RSS)
uncertainty model that is given in (17) (i.e., X v ( Pr) ). To determine
the RSS distribution, X v ( Pr), measurements are taken at different
antenna heights and distances. It is found that the RSS distribu-
tion follows the Gaussian distribution. Moreover, the standard
deviation of the Gaussian distribution is dependent on the mean
signal strength value [i.e., v = f (Pr)]. More specifically, the rela-
tion between the standard deviation and the mean value of the
distribution can be expressed as the division of two third-order
polynomials. The fourth component is the antenna radiation
impact, which is embedded into (17) through parameters K 1
(which expresses the changes in the strength of the signal in the
(15) direct path) and K 2 (which expresses the changes in the strength
of the reflected signal). Both directivity parameters, K 1 and K 2,
are critically dependant on the specifics of the antennas used
and obtained from the antenna radiation patterns determined
through measurements. In the experiments, a Tmote Sky sensor
node is mounted vertically at a height of 70 cm from the ground
as the transmitter and the signal strength values are measured
on a circle with a radius of 12 m in 15° polar angle separations.
These signal strength values are normalized, and the radiation
pattern is obtained. Indeed, K 1 and K 2 are determined by these
sets of normalized values.
The proposed model is verified by the measurement at
antenna heights of 0.12, 0.7, 1.5, and 1.97 m with Tmote Sky
platforms equipped with 2.4-GHz CC2420 radios. The FOM
is a similar approach with the log-normal path-loss model. To
calculate the average path loss, the two-ray model is used rather
than the curve fitting of measurement values used in the log-
normal model.
In another study [73], instead of utilizing a propagation
(17) model, a probability density function that characterizes the
relationship between the T–R distance and the reception rate in
WSNs is adopted. The measurements are performed at 433 and
916 MHz with antenna heights of 0, 0.08, 0.30, 0.90, and 1.50 m.
One of the important findings of [73] is that the existence of very
low reception rates with low T–R distances and high reception
rates with large T–R distances is observed. Although this study
does not focus on propagation modeling, the observations made
can be explained by using the characteristics of the two-ray
model (i.e., the nulls of the two-ray model).
A summary of the aforementioned models is given in Table 1.
Except for the free-space and two-ray models, all path mod-
els in Table 1 include statistical descriptors to account for the
random variations in the path loss. More precisely stated, log-
normal shadowing for the large-scale fading is incorporated into
the propagation model by employing a Gaussian random vari-
able characterized by its mean and standard deviation. Utiliz-
ing multiple Gaussian random variables to account for multiple
log-normal shadowing regimes provides better path-loss estima-
tion, as exemplified by the two-slope model where both slope

TABLE 1. A SUMMARY OF PATH-LOSS MODELS.

Antenna Reflection Antenna Random

Model Type Height Coefficient Pattern Variations Distance
free space [42] analytical No No No No yes
Two ray [19] analytical yes yes No No yes
One slope [49], [66], [67] empirical yes yes No yes yes
Two slope [66], [67] empirical yes yes No yes yes
VSr [70] analytical yes yes No No yes
fOM [72] analytical yes yes yes yes yes

8 february 2017 IEEE AntEnnAs & ProPAgAtIon MAgAzInE

 This article has been accepted for inclusion in a future issue of this journal. Content is final as presented, with the exception of pagination.
regimes have Gaussian random variables with different mean
and standard deviation values.
The antenna height dependence of the path loss is account-
ed for in all path-loss models in Table 1 except in the free-
space model. Two-ray and VSR models take the antenna
heights as inputs and incorporate their effects on the path loss
through mathematical formulations. One-slope, two-slope,
and FOM models do not incorporate antenna heights into the
path loss through mathematical relationships. Instead, the
measurements are performed at specific antenna heights, so
the effects of the antenna heights are dictated by the experi-
mental setups themselves.
QUANTITATIVE COMPARISONS OF PATH-LOSS MODELS
FOR WSNs
Up to this point, we have introduced the fundamentals of path-
loss modeling in WSNs and presented the path-loss models
developed for WSNs. In this section, we provide quantitative
comparisons of various path-loss models for WSNs under dif-
ferent scenarios and operating frequencies. Qualitative com-
parisons and assessments are valuable in evaluating the path-loss
models. However, without quantitative comparisons through
numerical evaluations, the comprehension of the subject will not
be complete.
MATERIAL AND METHODS
Most of the WSN platforms available on the market use radio
frequency transceivers working at 868 (Europe), 915 (United
States), and 2,400 MHz in unlicensed industrial, scientific, and
medical frequency bands [55], [74]–[77]. Licensed higher-fre-
quency bands are also envisioned to be used for WSNs through
the concept of cognitive radio, where secondary users can
utilize licensed bands without creating interference for the pri-
mary users [78]. For example, the 3,500-MHz frequency band
licensed for Worldwide Interoperability for Microwave Access
can be used for WSNs as secondary users.
To assess the performances of propagation models to be used
for WSN applications, we present comparative performance
evaluations by utilizing the measurement data available for
868-, 2,400-, and 3,500-MHz frequency bands. We adopt the
measurement configuration parameters presented in [49], [66],
and [67] for numerical analysis. Indeed, the models obtained by
curve fitting the measured data will serve as the base model in
evaluating the path-loss models. Curve fitting is done by mini-
mizing the error between the measured data and the models
in (12) (i.e., the one-slope model) and (14) (i.e., the two-slope
model) through the least-squares method. In fact, the number of
parameters and the level of detail are correlated with the accu-
racy of the path-loss model. Being best fit for measured data, the
two-slope model is the most elegant model considered in this
study. The validation of the one-slope and two-slope models in
[66] shows that the utilization of the two-slope model enables
much more realistic network topology reconstruction than the
one-slope model. Moreover, the verification of the one-slope and
two-slope models in [67] reveals that the two-slope model leads
to a much lower path-loss estimation error than the one-slope
IEEE AntEnnAs & ProPAgAtIon MAgAzInE february 2017
model. However, two-slope models are available only for 868-
and 2,400-MHz data [66], [67]. Only the one-slope model for
the 3,500-MHz data is available [49]. Despite this shortcoming,
the models presented in [49] are useful in assessing the differ-
ence between the LOS and NLOS cases with different antenna
heights. For the NLOS case, a direct path was obstructed by two
rows of shrubs and small trees. The parameters of the one-slope
and two-slope models at different frequencies, sites, and antenna
heights are presented in Tables 2 and 3, respectively.
The path-loss models we utilized in comparisons can be
grouped into the following two classes:
1) analytical models (free-space and two-ray models)
2) measurement-based models (one-slope and two-slope
models and generic log-normal shadowing).
Analytical models can be conveniently used in the analysis of
WSNs without any scenario-specific parameters except for the
antenna heights. However, the price paid for the convenience
is the loss of accuracy. Measurement-based models necessitate
that the scenario-specific data are known, which is the price to
be paid for the accuracy.
As elaborated in the sections “Variable Soil-Reflectivity
Model” and “Free-Space Outdoor Model,” the VSR and FOM
models are based on the two-ray model. In fact, the difference
with these path-loss models is the incorporation of the reflec-
tion coefficient of the ground and antenna patterns into the
two-ray model. Therefore, these two models are not included in
the figures. In the comparisons, for the two-ray model, instead
of a −1 reflection coefficient assumption, which is the usual
assumption, the reflection coefficient is calculated using (6) and
(7) with the typical relative permittivity of the ground taken as
15 [19]. To calculate the received power, instead of using the
approximated two-ray model given in (16), direct-wave and
reflected-wave powers are calculated for all distances by taking
the reflection coefficient and the antenna height parameters
into account.
In Figures 2–8, the path-loss values for 868- and 2,400-
MHz bands are presented. Note that the two-slope model
is the base model used to compare the other models for the
868- and 2,400-MHz cases in this study. Indeed, the path-loss
estimation performance of the two-slope model is confirmed
by the measurement results represented in [66] and [67]. As
shown in Tables 2 and 3, the v values of the two-slope model
for all of the scenarios are smaller than those of the one-slope
model, which indicates a better fit for the measurement results.
In Figure 9, we present the path-loss values for the 3,500-MHz
band. The effects of LOS and NLOS propagation are clearly
illustrated in Figure 9 [Figure 9(a) and (c) is for LOS cases, and
Figure 9(b) and (d) is for NLOS cases].
COMPARATIVE EVALUATIONS OF PATH-LOSS MODELS
The first comparison set is given for the three scenarios of
[66] in Figure 2. Mica2 motes operating at 868 MHz are
employed in measurements, and the antennas are 13 cm
above the ground. The measurements are performed in three
different scenarios/environments: 1) a fairly ideal flat ground
(ground plain), 2) an open field surrounded by four-story
9
 This article has been accepted for inclusion in a future issue of this journal. Content is final as presented, with the exception of pagination.

TABLE 2. THE ONE-SLOPE PATH-LOSS MODEL PARAMETERS [49], [66], [67].

Frequency Site h t /h r PL (d 0) n v

868 MHz Park 13 cm/13 cm 31 3.69 1.42

868 MHz Ground plain 13 cm/13 cm 31 3.12 1.83
868 MHz university yard 13 cm/13 cm 31 3.57 3.27
2,400 MHz Plaza 1 m/1 m 42.86 1.86 3.25
2,400 MHz Plaza 3 cm/1 m 51.51 2.21 4.34
2,400 MHz Plaza 3 cm/2 m 53.81 1.86 4.62
2,400 MHz Sidewalk 1 m/1 m 40.36 1.99 2.45
2,400 MHz Sidewalk 3 cm/1 m 50.91 2.47 5.74
2,400 MHz Sidewalk 3 cm/2 m 52.49 2.14 5.23
2,400 MHz Grassland 1 m/1 m 40.51 1.90 3.02
2,400 MHz Grassland 3 cm/1 m 51.08 2.48 5.19
2,400 MHz Grassland 3 cm/2 m 53.56 2.08 5.59
3,500 MHz LOS 0.3 m/2.1 m 43.3 2.0 1.3
3,500 MHz NLOS 0.3 m/2.1 m 43.3 2.8 4.3
3,500 MHz LOS 2.1 m/2.1 m 43.3 2.1 1.3
3,500 MHz NLOS 2.1 m/2.1 m 43.3 2.6 4.1

TABLE 3. THE TWO-SLOPE PATH-LOSS MODEL PARAMETERS [66], [67].

Frequency Site h t /h r PL (d 01) PL (d 02) n1 n2 v1 v2 db

868 MHz Park 13 cm/13 cm 33 23 2.09 4.01 0.28 0.67 0.95
868 MHz Ground plain 13 cm/13 cm 33 23 2.34 3.73 0.60 0.42 6.2
868 MHz university yard 13 cm/13 cm 33 23 2.76 4.00 2.98 1.82 3.2
2,400 MHz Plaza 1 m/1 m 67.68 65.61 1.52 3.74 2.49 1.85 32
2,400 MHz Plaza 3 cm/1 m 57.29 60.26 1.00 2.91 1.99 2.94 5
2,400 MHz Plaza 3 cm/2 m 60.54 61.36 1.06 2.87 1.75 2.25 7
2,400 MHz Sidewalk 1 m/1 m 69.29 67.84 1.55 3.34 3.09 1.55 38
2,400 MHz Sidewalk 3 cm/1 m 55.35 57.36 1.01 3.31 2.02 3.47 4
2,400 MHz Sidewalk 3 cm/2 m 58.87 61.44 1.05 3.29 1.69 2.01 7
2,400 MHz Grassland 1 m/1 m 65.03 66.09 1.26 3.93 2.98 1.51 38
2,400 MHz Grassland 3 cm/1 m 55.69 57.57 0.65 3.62 1.37 1.90 5
2,400 MHz Grassland 3 cm/2 m 62.36 64.04 1.14 3.43 1.39 1.42 9

buildings (university yard), and 3) a slightly sloped grassland
(park). These scenarios are useful in observing the effects of
various propagation mechanisms on the path loss. In fact, the
ground plain scenario is useful mainly in observing the effects
of reflection. The park scenario is useful in observing the
effects of scattering in addition to reflection. The university
yard scenario adds the multipath effects from surrounding
buildings to the other scenarios.
Figure 2 presents the path-loss curves as functions of the dis-
tance between the transmitter and the receiver. Along with the
one-slope and two-slope path-loss models, two pure analytical
models, the free-space and two-ray models, are also presented.
It is possible to use the two-ray model with both parallel polar-
ization [using (6)] and perpendicular polarization [using (7)].
Hence, the path-loss curves for both polarizations are avail-
able in the figures. The result for the log-normal shadowing
path-loss model with generic values given in [65] is included.
This model is similar to the one-slope model with parameters
PL (d 0) = 55 dB, n = 4, and v = 4. However, the effects of
the antenna heights or the operating frequency are not taken
into account. Hence, it is a generic WSN path-loss model, and
the inclusion of this model into the comparisons will reveal

10 february 2017 IEEE AntEnnAs & ProPAgAtIon MAgAzInE

 This article has been accepted for inclusion in a future issue of this journal. Content is final as presented, with the exception of pagination.

–20 –20
–40 –40
Received Power (dBm)

Received Power (dBm)

–60 –60
–80 –80
–100 –100
–120 –120
–140 –140
–160 –160
–180 –180
0 1 2 3
10 10 10 10 100 101 102 103
Distance (m) Distance (m)
(a)
Ground Plain Park University Yard
–20
–40 FIGURE 3. a scenario comparison for the two-slope model at
Received Power (dBm)

868 MHz.
–60
–80
A holistic view of the path-loss characteristics of the models
–100
by considering the three environments in Figure 2 reveals that
–120 there are three distinct groups of path-loss models. The first
–140 group is formed by two of the pure theoretical models (i.e., the
–160 free-space and two-ray parallel-polarization models), which con-
sistently underestimate the path loss in all scenarios. The two-
–180
slope, one-slope, and two-ray perpendicular-polarization models
100 101 102 103 form the second group, where the intragroup differences are
Distance (m) significantly lower than the intergroup path-loss differences as
(b) a general trend. The third group, in fact, has only one member,
which is the log-normal shadowing model in [65], with scenario-
–20
independent parameters that overestimate the path loss in all
–40 environments.
Received Power (dBm)

–60 Taking the two-slope model as the reference, the two-ray

–80 model with perpendicular polarization is the most realistic
theoretical model. However, if the electric field polariza-
–100
tion is chosen as the parallel polarization, then the two-ray
–120
model leads to significant path-loss estimation errors (e.g.,
–140 as high as 30 dB). Note that the one-slope and log-normal
–160 shadowing models are based on the same path-loss formula
–180 (12). However, in the one-slope model, the parameters in
the formula are chosen by the curve fitting of the measure-
100 101 102 103
ment data; yet, in the log-normal shadowing model, the
Distance (m)
parameters are fixed (i.e., the generic parameter values are
(c)
employed). The one-slope model gives path-loss values in
Two-Ray (Perpendicular Polarized) close proximity to the two-slope model, whereas the log-
Two-Ray (Parallel Polarized) normal shadowing model leads to significant path-loss esti-
Log-Normal Shadowing mation errors. Therefore, the utilization of the environment
Free Space One Slope Two Slope and scenario-independent path-loss models can result in
large path-loss estimation errors.
FIGURE 2. The path loss at 868 MHz (with transmitter and In Figure 3, the path-loss curves obtained by using the
receiver antenna heights of 13 cm): (a) the ground plain, two-slope model for the three scenarios considered are
(b) park, and (c) university yard.
presented as functions of the transmitter and receiver sepa-
the suitability of employing a generic path-loss model in WSNs ration. This figure is used to analyze whether the path-loss
without considering the effects of the specific propagation envi- parameters measured at one site can be employed at another
ronment and the application scenario. site. The answer we get from Figure 3 is that the level of

IEEE AntEnnAs & ProPAgAtIon MAgAzInE february 2017 11

 This article has been accepted for inclusion in a future issue of this journal. Content is final as presented, with the exception of pagination.

–20
–20
–40

Received Power (dBm)

–40
Received Power (dBm)

–60
–60
–80
–80
–100
–100
–120
–120
–140
–140
–160
–160
–180
–180
100 101 102 103
100 101 102 103
Distance (m)
Distance (m)
(a)
(a)

–20
–20
–40
–40

Received Power (dBm)

Received Power (dBm)

–60
–60
–80
–80
–100
–100
–120
–120
–140
–140
–160
–160
–180
–180
100 101 102 103
100 101 102 103
Distance (m)
Distance (m)
(b)
(b)

–20 –20
–40 –40
Received Power (dBm)
Received Power (dBm)

–60 –60
–80 –80
–100 –100
–120 –120
–140 –140
–160 –160
–180 –180

100 101 102 103 100 101 102 103

Distance (m) Distance (m)
(c) (c)

Two-Ray (Perpendicular Polarized) Free Space One Slope

Two-Ray (Parallel Polarized) Two Slope Two Slope
Log-Normal Shadowing

FIGURE 4. The analytic path loss at 2.4 GHz for different FIGURE 5. The measurement-based path loss at 2.4 GHz
transmitter and receiver antenna heights (grassland for different transmitter and receiver antenna heights
scenario). a measurement-based two-slope model is also (grassland scenario). The two-slope model can be taken as
included as the reference. (a) Path loss 1 m/1 m, (b) path loss the reference. (a) Path loss 1 m/1 m, (b) path loss 3 cm/1 m,
3 cm/1 m, and (c) path loss 3 cm/2 m. and (c) path loss 3 cm/2 m.

12 february 2017 IEEE AntEnnAs & ProPAgAtIon MAgAzInE

 This article has been accepted for inclusion in a future issue of this journal. Content is final as presented, with the exception of pagination.

–20 –20
–40 –40

Received Power (dBm)

Received Power (dBm)

–60 –60
–80 –80
–100 –100
–120 –120
–140 –140
–160 –160
–180 –180

100 101 102 103 100 101 102 103

Distance (m) Distance (m)
(a) (a)

–20 –20
–40 –40

Received Power (dBm)

Received Power (dBm)

–60 –60
–80 –80
–100 –100
–120 –120
–140 –140
–160 –160
–180 –180

100 101 102 103 100 101 102 103

Distance (m) Distance (m)
(b) (b)

–20 –20
–40 –40
Received Power (dBm)
Received Power (dBm)

–60 –60
–80 –80
–100 –100
–120 –120
–140 –140
–160 –160
–180 –180

100 101 102 103 100 101 102 103

Distance (m) Distance (m)
(c) (c)

Two-Ray (Perpendicular Polarized) Free Space Two-Ray (Perpendicular Polarized) Free Space
Two-Ray (Parallel Polarized) Two Slope Two-Ray (Parallel Polarized) Two Slope

FIGURE 6. The analytic path loss at 2.4 GHz for different
transmitter and receiver antenna heights (plaza scenario).
The measurement-based two-slope model is also included as
the reference. (a) Path loss 1 m/1 m, (b) path loss 3 cm/1 m,
and (c) path loss 3 cm/2 m.
FIGURE 7. The analytic path loss at 2.4 GHz for different
transmitter and receiver antenna heights (sidewalk scenario).
The measurement-based two-slope model is also included as
the reference. (a) Path loss 1 m/1 m, (b) path loss 3 cm/1 m,
and (c) path loss 3 cm/2 m.

IEEE AntEnnAs & ProPAgAtIon MAgAzInE february 2017 13

 This article has been accepted for inclusion in a future issue of this journal. Content is final as presented, with the exception of pagination.

where the transmitter and the receiver always have a direct

–20 LOS path). For example, the path-loss values of the three
cases are within 5- and 10-dB neighborhoods at 10 and 100
–40
m, respectively.
Received Power (dBm)

–60
To observe the effects of the operating frequency on the
–80 path-loss models, the rest of this section presents a compara-
–100 tive analysis using the three scenarios of [67] conducted at
–120 2.4 GHz. The measurement results for three different trans-
mitter and receiver antenna heights (i.e., h t /h r are 1 m/1 m,
–140
3 cm/1 m, and 3 cm/2 m) are presented. The three environ-
–160 ments used for the measurements are a large plaza, a straight
–180 sidewalk, and an open grassland. The plaza is a rectangular-
100 101 102 103
shaped site (an area of 115 m 2 # 100 m 2 ) bordered by trees
Distance (m) and several buildings. The second site is a straight sidewalk
(a) along a suburban road, and the other side is a large plot of
lowland with scattered trees. The sidewalk is a fairly flat ter-
–20 rain paved with pitch and bricks. The grassland is a flat land
–40 consisting of soil and sand.
Received Power (dBm)

In Figures 4 and 5, the path-loss values obtained in the

–60
grassland scenario for both the theoretical and measurement-
–80 based models are presented as functions of the transmitter
–100 and receiver distance. Because plotting all models in the same
–120 figure makes the curves indistinguishable, we opt to present the
–140
theoretical models in Figure 4 and the experimental models in
Figure 5. The two-slope model is plotted in both figures as the
–160
reference. The two-ray model with perpendicular polarization
–180 is in close proximity to the two-slope model, provided that the
100 101 102 103 transmission distance is larger than 10 m. The best path-loss
Distance (m) estimation performance of the two-ray model is attained when
(b) both the transmitter and receiver antenna heights are 1 m. The
measurements at 868 MHz are carried out when both transmit-
–20 ter and receiver antennas are on the ground; conversely, in the
–40 2.4-GHz case, the antennas are never simultaneously at the
Received Power (dBm)

–60 ground level (such measurement data sets are lacking in the
WSN literature). Therefore, the two-ray model with perpen-
–80
dicular polarization results in lower path-loss estimation errors
–100
than the one-slope model at 2.4 GHz, in general, unlike the 868-
–120 MHz case. The two-ray parallel-polarization, free-space, and
–140 log-normal shadowing models with generic values produce high
–160 errors, so they are not suitable to be used in this scenario.
Figures 6 and 7 present the path-loss values for only the
–180
two-slope model, the free-space model, and both polarizations
100 101 102 103 of the two-ray model in the plaza and sidewalk scenarios. We
Distance (m) do not present the path-loss curves for the one-slope model
(c) and the log-normal shadowing model with generic parameters
Plaza because they do not exhibit significant differences compared to
Sidewalk their characteristics in Figures 4 and 5. The two-ray model with
Grassland
perpendicular polarization follows the two-slope model more
closely in both the plaza and sidewalk scenarios than it does in
FIGURE 8. a 2.4-GHz scenario comparison for the two-slope the grassland scenario as long as the transmission distance is
model: (a) path loss (1 m, 1 m), (b) path loss (3 cm, 1 m), and
larger than 10 m.
(c) path loss (3 cm, 2 m).
When we consider Figures 4–7 jointly, we can make
the following observations. The two-ray model is a good
precision required is the determining factor, provided that choice when both the transmitter and receiver antennas
the obstruction characteristics and densities do not differ sig- are 1 m high. Therefore, if there are no measurements
nificantly between the sites (as in the case of our scenarios, available and the antennas are high enough from the

14 february 2017 IEEE AntEnnAs & ProPAgAtIon MAgAzInE

 This article has been accepted for inclusion in a future issue of this journal. Content is final as presented, with the exception of pagination.

–10 –10
–20 –20
–30 –30
Received Power (dBm)

Received Power (dBm)

–40 –40
–50 –50
–60 –60
–70 –70
–80 –80
–90 –90
–100 –100
–110 –110
100 101 102 103 100 101 102 103
Distance (m) Distance (m)
(a) (b)

–10 –10
–20 –20
–30 –30
Received Power (dBm)

Received Power (dBm)

–40 –40
–50 –50
–60 –60
–70 –70
–80 –80
–90 –90
–100 –100
–110 –110
100 101 102 103 100 101 102 103
Distance (m) Distance (m)
(c) (d)

Two-Ray (Parallel Polarized) Free Space One Slope

FIGURE 9. a 3.5-GHz scenario comparison for LOS–NLOS: (a) LOS path loss (0.3 m, 2.1 m), (b) NLOS path loss (0.3 m, 2.1 m),
(c) LOS path loss (2.1 m, 2.1 m), and (d) NLOS path loss (2.1 m, 2.1 m).

ground (e.g., at least a few wavelengths), then the two-ray and (b), the path-loss values are in the 10- and 20-dB neigh-
model that includes the ground-reflection coefficient with borhood of each other, respectively.
correct polarization, antenna gains, and heights gives The better performance of the analytical models with increas-
a fairly good estimate of the actual path loss. However, ing antenna heights from the ground is also observed in the 3,500-
if one of the antennas is very close to the ground, then MHz case (Figure 9). The differences between the analytical
the accuracy of the two-ray model deteriorates. Another models (the two-ray and free-space models) and the empirical
observation is that the breakpoints in the two-slope mod- model (the one-slope model) reduce as the transmitter antenna
els are mostly antenna height dependent. height is increased from 0.3 m [Figure 9(a) and (b)] to 2.1 m
In Figure 8, the path-loss values obtained with the two- [Figure 9(c) and (d)] for both the LOS and NLOS cases. Further-
slope model for different scenarios at the same antenna more, the difference between the analytical models and the empiri-
heights are presented [e.g., in Figure 8(a), the path loss cal model is higher in the NLOS cases compared to the LOS cases.
obtained with 1-m-high transmitter and receiver antennas for For easy navigation of the results from the figures, the main
the plaza, grassland, and sidewalk scenarios are presented]. As findings and observations on the figures presented in the “Com-
in the 868-MHz case, the option of utilizing the parameters parative Evaluations of Path-Loss Models” section are summa-
for one site to estimate another site’s path-loss characteristics rized as follows.
is dependent on the level of precision required. However, if 1) Figure 2 shows the path loss at the 868-MHz band for the
the antennas are very close to the ground, then the extent analytical and empirical models. Both models with unsuitable
of the path-loss difference is higher compared to the cases parameters can lead to large errors when both antennas are
where antenna heights are high. For example, in Figure 8(a) on the ground.

IEEE AntEnnAs & ProPAgAtIon MAgAzInE february 2017 15

 This article has been accepted for inclusion in a future issue of this journal. Content is final as presented, with the exception of pagination.
2) Figure 3 shows the differences between the two-slope model
at the 868-MHz band for different scenarios. The level of
precision is the determining factor in utilizing an accurate
model for one site as the path-loss model on another site.
3) Figures 4 and 5 show the path loss at 2.4 GHz in the grass-
land scenario for the analytical and empirical models,
respectively. The two-ray model with perpendicular polar-
ization is the analytical model with the best performance,
especially for higher antenna heights [i.e., (1 m, 1 m) case].
4) Figures 6 and 7 show the analytical path-loss models for the
plaza and sidewalk scenarios at the 2.4-GHz band, respec-
tively. The free-space two-ray parallel-polarization models
can lead to large errors. The breakpoint distance is mostly
antenna height dependent rather than scenario dependent.
5) Figure 8 shows the differences between the two-slope model
at the 2.4-GHz band for different scenarios. The path-loss
estimation error in the scenario mismatch is higher for lower
antenna heights.
6) Figure 9 shows the path loss at 3.5 GHz for the LOS and
NLOS cases with different antenna heights. The theoretical
model estimation errors are higher in the NLOS cases.
IMPACT OF PATH-LOSS MODELS ON WSN PERFORMANCE
ASSESSMENT
In the preceding section, we presented a comparative evaluation
of the path-loss values for different path-loss models. In this sec-
tion, we present an analysis of the impact of path-loss models on
WSN performance. In the WSN scenario we considered, sensor
nodes are required to send data to the base station via minimum
hop routing either directly or through other sensor nodes act-
ing as relays (i.e., multihop routing). Minimum hop routing is a
well-known and widely utilized routing approach in WSNs [5],
[79]. In minimum hop routing, each sensor node sends its data
toward the base station by utilizing the minimum hop route.
The network performance metrics we considered are the
average hop count per node, the average number of neighbor
nodes per node, and the average number of disconnected
nodes in the network. Certain nodes get disconnected because
no path can be found to the sink. The average number of
hops is a direct indicator of the transmission and reception
energy dissipation in the network. For example, in a five-hop
path, each data packet is transmitted and received five times,
whereas in a single-hop path, one transmission and one recep-
tion is enough (i.e., the energy dissipation for communication
in a five-hop route is five times the energy dissipation in a
single-hop path given a constant transmission power level for
all nodes). Furthermore, the packet delay also increases with
an increasing hop count. Therefore, the increase in the hop
count is undesirable in WSNs. The reliability of a WSN is high-
er when the average number of neighbors is higher because,
in case of node failures, the creation of alternative routes
depends on the availability of relay nodes, which are more
ample if the average number of neighbors is high. Network
disconnection has severe consequences in WSNs. For example,
in a border-monitoring application, the loss of communica-
tion with a subset of sensor nodes creates significant security
16
breaches because a certain portion of the area to be monitored
is left wide open for intruders.
We assumed each node transmits at 0 dBm and the receiver
sensitivity is −101 dBm (i.e., if the received power is below
−101 dBm on a link between two nodes, then those nodes can-
not communicate) in our experiments [80]. For fair comparison,
we apply these parameters to all three bands (i.e., 868 MHz
and 2.4 and 3.5 GHz). We assumed a disk-shaped network
deployment area (the network radius is denoted as R net ) with
100 nodes. The sensor nodes are deployed by using a random
uniform distribution, and the base station is positioned at the
center of the disk. The results are averaged for 100 independent
node deployments and path-loss assignments to the links for
each path-loss model.
In Table 4, the average source-to-sink path length in terms
of hops (N H) , the average number of neighbors per node (N N),
and the average value of the maximum transmission range
(d max) are presented for various scenarios using two-slope,
one-slope, free-space, two-ray perpendicular-polarization, and
two-ray parallel-polarization path-loss models. In Table 5,
the average percentage of disconnected nodes (p discon) is pre-
sented. In the scenarios presented in Table 4, the network
radius values are chosen in such a way that p discon is below
1% because, when p discon is high (e.g., 50%), the N H values
do not reflect the actual network performance (e.g., in high
p discon networks, only the nodes closer to the base station can
establish paths to the base station, and the N H values of these
paths are too low, so the reliability of the N H metric is lost
in high p discon network topologies). Nevertheless, we present
only the p discon metric without presenting the N H and N N met-
rics in Table 5 for the scenarios with p discon higher than 90.0%.
In each scenario, the network radius values are also given.
We first investigate the effects of LOS and NLOS propaga-
tion environments for the 3.5-GHz band on the WSN perfor-
mance metrics. For the NLOS case, R net = 600 m, whereas for
the LOS case, R net = 900 m. These values are limiting in the
sense that p discon is starting to surpass 1% if the R net values are
chosen slightly larger. In the NLOS case, all analytical models
fail to predict the N H , N N , and d max values with significant
errors because these models lack the ability to incorporate the
effects of obstacles in the propagation path. However, in the
LOS case, the estimated values of the metrics obtained with
the two-ray model with perpendicular polarization are very
close to those obtained with the one-slope model. Yet, the use
of the free-space and two-ray parallel-polarization model still
leads to significant errors. The network disconnection fails to
be modeled accurately by all of the analytical models for the
NLOS case, whereas the two-ray model with perpendicular
polarization gives a p discon value very close to the one-slope
model for the LOS case.
Second, we investigate the effects of antenna height varia-
tions for the 2.4-GHz band on the WSN performance met-
rics. For all antenna heights, the estimations of N H , N N , d max,
and p discon by the two-slope and one-slope models differ
significantly. The two-ray model with perpendicular polariza-
tion gives remarkably close results to the two-slope model.
february 2017 IEEE AntEnnAs & ProPAgAtIon MAgAzInE
 This article has been accepted for inclusion in a future issue of this journal. Content is final as presented, with the exception of pagination.

TABLE 4. THE AVERAGE NUMBER OF HOPS AND NEIGHBORS FOR DIFFERENT

SCENARIOS AND PATH-LOSS MODELS.

Two-Ray Two-Ray
Perpendicular Parallel
Two Slope One Slope Free Space Polarized Polarized
Rnet NH NN dmax NH NN dmax NH NN dmax NH NN dmax NH NN dmax
NLOS, 600.0 — — — 2.7 8.3 172.5 1.0 77.8 765.0 1.1 55.4 575.0 1.0 96.2 1,032.0
2.1–2.1 m,
3,500 MHz
LOS, 900.0 — — — 1.6 29.1 570.8 1.3 46.5 765.0 1.6 29.9 575.0 1.0 68.5 1,032.0
2.1–2.1 m,
3,500 MHz
Plaza, 800.0 2.7 10.8 285.8 1.0 86.0 1,460.9 1.0 84.7 1,116.1 2.8 10.7 285.0 1.0 99.0 1,582.0
1–1 m,
2,400 MHz
Plaza, 400.0 2.8 9.3 230.8 1.8 19.7 195.4 1.0 99.0 1,116.1 5.3 4.6 91.0 1.0 99.0 1,585.0
3 cm–1 m,
2,400 MHz
Plaza, 600.0 3.5 7.3 178.8 1.6 32.5 432.1 1.0 98.5 1,116.1 4.4 3.4 115.0 1.0 99.0 1,583.0
3 cm–2 m
2,400 MHz
Ground 400.0 3.1 9.2 131.0 2.0 18.2 185.2 1.0 99.0 3,462.0 3.5 7.7 110.0 1.0 99.0 4,384.0
plain,
868 MHz
Park, 100.0 2.6 11.7 37.2 2.2 14.8 41.9 1.0 99.0 3,462.0 1.0 72.4 110.0 1.0 99.0 4,384.0
868 MHz
university 100.0 3.1 8.8 31.9 2.1 14.7 41.9 1.0 99.0 3,462.0 1.0 72.4 110.0 1.0 99.0 4,384.0
yard,
868 MHz

Especially at higher antenna heights (i.e., both antennas are
at 1-m height), the two-ray model with perpendicular polar-
ization produces results in close proximity to those of the
two-slope model. Both the free-space and two-ray parallel-
polarization models fail to give accurate estimations of N H ,
N N , d max , and p discon .
Third, we investigate the effects of different propagation
environments with very low antenna heights for the 868-MHz
band on the WSN performance metrics. In all environments,
both the free-space and two-ray parallel-polarization models
fail to provide accurate estimations of any metrics. In fact,
huge differences between the estimations using both the
free-space and two-ray parallel-polarization models compared
with the two-slope model exist in all scenarios. The two-ray
model with perpendicular polarization produces results close
to the two-ray model only for the ground plain because, in all
868-MHz environments, the ground plain is closest to being
an LOS scenario. However, in the park and university yard
scenarios, the two-ray model with perpendicular polarization
also fails to accurately model the path loss. The one-slope
model gives the best results (compared with the two-slope
model) for the park and university yard scenarios. For the
ground plain scenario, the use of the one-slope model in
estimating the metrics leads to significant errors (worse than
the two-ray model with perpendicular polarization).
In summary, the use of the free-space and two-ray paral-
lel-polarization models is definitely not suitable in path-loss
estimation. The two-ray model with perpendicular polariza-
tion gives satisfactory results if the propagation path is not
NLOS. The one-slope model produces mixed results for dif-
ferent scenarios. Therefore, the use of the two-slope model is
the best option.
CONCLUSIONS AND OPEN ISSUES
Path-loss modeling is of the utmost importance for the reliable
and accurate analysis of WSNs; yet, in many studies on WSNs,
the use of inappropriate and simplistic path-loss models is
employed, leading to unrealistic assessments of the problems
under investigation. Our starting point in the creation of this
article is to provide the necessary but succinct background
on the basics of the path loss in wireless communications and
to briefly introduce the mechanisms of the free-space, two-
ray, log-distance, and shadowing models. We summarize the
constraints imposed by the WSN applications and scenarios
on propagation modeling and explore the path-loss models
used in WSN research. To give a more tangible picture of the

IEEE AntEnnAs & ProPAgAtIon MAgAzInE february 2017 17

 This article has been accepted for inclusion in a future issue of this journal. Content is final as presented, with the exception of pagination.

TABLE 5. THE AVERAGE PERCENTAGE OF DISCONNECTED NODES FOR

DIFFERENT SCENARIOS AND PATH-LOSS MODELS.

Two-Ray Two-Ray
Perpendicular Parallel
Two Slope One Slope Free Space Polarized Polarized
Rnet pdiscon dmax pdiscon dmax pdiscon dmax pdiscon dmax pdiscon dmax
NLOS, 2.1–2.1 m, 1,500.0 — — 94.5 172.5 0.0 765.0 0.0 575.0 0.0 1,032.0
3,500 MHz
LOS, 2.1–2.1 m, 4,500.0 — — 96.0 570.8 83.3 765.0 96.4 575.0 21.5 1,032.0
3,500 MHz
Plaza, 1–1 m, 2,000.0 94.2 285.8 0.0 1,460.9 0.0 1,116.1 94.8 285.0 0.0 1,582.0
2,400 MHz
Plaza, 3 cm–1 m, 1,100.0 96.5 230.8 20.1 195.4 0.0 1,116.1 98.4 91.0 0.0 1,585.0
2,400 MHz
Plaza, 3 cm–2 m, 1,200.0 92.4 178.8 0.0 432.1 0.0 1,116.1 97.9 115.0 0.0 1,583.0
2,400 MHz
Ground plain, 900.0 94.0 131.0 34.9 185.2 0.0 3,462.0 96.1 110.0 0.0 4,384.0
868 MHz
Park, 868 MHz 300.0 96.5 37.2 94.5 41.9 0.0 3,462.0 0.0 110.0 0.0 4,384.0
university yard, 300.0 97.5 31.9 92.7 41.9 0.0 3,462.0 0.0 110.0 0.0 4,384.0
868 MHz

differences between the path-loss models, we provide quantita-
tive comparisons of these models under various scenarios. The
highlights of this article are as follows.
1) Before using a particular path-loss model, its applicability to
the specific WSN case under consideration should be
checked. An awareness of the assumptions made for the
chosen model and the suitability for the application scenario
must be established. While employing any path-loss model,
the incorporation of salient scenario-dependent parameters,
such as antenna height, wavelength, antenna polarization,
and ground reflectivity, should not be ignored. Adding
parameters that are crucial for the application improves the
accuracy of the used model.
2) Most of the observations on measured data can be
explained by suitable theoretical models. Specifically, for
the unobstructed outdoor WSN case, this model can be
the two-ray model. Especially high path-loss regions with
small T–R distances can be explained by nulls in the
model that result from the destructive addition of ground-
reflected waves. However, the performance of the two-ray
model deteriorates significantly for the NLOS propaga-
tion paths.
3) The most accurate currently available model to character-
ize the path loss in WSNs is the two-slope model. But keep
in mind that the parameters of the model should be
assigned by curve fitting the measured data obtained from
field experiments.
4) Utilizing the two-slope model with parameters that do
not match the characteristics of the deployment consid-
ered (e.g., by utilizing the parameters obtained for a
different scenario, such as different frequencies or
antenna heights) would produce significant path-loss
estimation errors.
5) If it is not possible to conduct experiments to determine the
two-slope model’s parameters for a particular scenario and if
there are no data reported in literature that closely represent
the scenario, then the two-ray model with correct polariza-
tion should be employed.
6) To apply the two-ray model with higher accuracy, both h t
and h r should be included in the utilized model, and it
should be ensured that the antenna heights are larger than at
least a few wavelengths.
7) The utilization of the free-space, two-ray incorrect-polar-
ization, and generic models (e.g., the log-normal shadow-
ing model in [65] with scenario-independent parameters)
should be avoided so that significant path-loss estimation
errors are not made.
There are several open issues to be explored in path-loss
modeling for WSNs.
1) There are no field measurements available to characterize
the path loss for WSNs at 868 MHz with different transmit-
ter and receiver antenna heights (e.g., h t /h r are 1 m/1 m,
3 cm/1 m, and 3 cm/2 m).
2) Path-loss measurements for WSNs operating at 2.4 GHz
with both transmitter and receiver antennas placed on the
ground (e.g., 3 cm/3 cm) are missing in the literature.
3) Experimental evaluations with different antenna polariza-
tions in WSNs are also an open research avenue.
4) The characterization of the path loss in WSNs with mobile
base stations and/or mobile nodes with low antenna heights

18 february 2017 IEEE AntEnnAs & ProPAgAtIon MAgAzInE

 This article has been accepted for inclusion in a future issue of this journal. Content is final as presented, with the exception of pagination.
through direct experimentation is another insufficiently
explored topic.
5) Unlike the other areas of wireless communications, there is
no standard path-loss model for WSNs even after a more
than decade-long intensive worldwide research and develop-
ment effort, which hinders the comparability of research
results. Therefore, a set of path-loss models for certain WSN
environments/scenarios, agreed upon by international
authorities like the International Telecommunications
Union, would be invaluable.
As discussed in the “WSN Overview” section, the utiliza-
tion of accurate path-loss models in simulations and analysis of
WSNs is necessary for realistic performance assessment and
characterization. As an example scenario, let’s consider a WSN
deployed over farmland for monitoring the soil conditions.
The antennas of the nodes of such a WSN should be over the
ground. Therefore, the path losses among the nodes cannot
be estimated accurately by analytical models (i.e., free space
or two ray). Hence, assessing the WSN performance metrics
based on huge path-loss estimation errors would result in highly
ineffective (if not nonfunctional) WSN deployments. Further-
more, maintaining a connected network topology is a vital
functionality in WSNs. If the path loss among the sensor nodes
is overestimated, then the number of sensor nodes required
to be deployed will also be overestimated. On the other hand,
if the path-loss values are underestimated, then the network
connectivity cannot be established for some sensor nodes. As
demonstrated in the “Impact of Path-Loss Models on WSN
Performance Assessment” section, the utilization of inappropri-
ate path-loss models results in huge performance assessment
errors in the average path length (in terms of hops), the number
of neighbors, and the connectedness of the network. As exempli-
fied by the preceding examples, the accurate analysis of WSN
architectures and deployments is not possible without employ-
ing proper radio propagation models for target scenarios.
AUTHOR INFORMATION
Sinan Kurt (skurt@etu.edu.tr) received his Ph.D. degree in
electrical and electronics engineering from the TOBB University
of Economics and Technology, Ankara, Turkey. He is a lead
design engineer at ASELSAN Inc., Ankara. His research inter-
ests are in wireless communications, electromagnetics, circuit
design, and optimization.
Bulent Tavli (btavli@etu.edu.tr) is a professor in the Depart-
ment of Electrical and Electronics Engineering, TOBB Universi-
ty of Economics and Technology, Ankara, Turkey. His current
research areas are wireless communications, networking, optimi-
zation, embedded systems, information security, and smart grid.
REFERENCES
[1] S. Kurt and B. Tavli, “Propagation model alternatives for outdoor wireless
sensor networks,” in Proc. Int. Federation for Information Processing Wireless
Days, 2013, pp. 1–3.
[2] J. T. Correll, “Igloo white,” Air Force Mag., vol. 87, no. 11, pp. 56–61, Nov. 2004.
[3] I. F. Akyildiz, W. Su, Y. Sankarasubramaniam, and E. Cayirci, “A survey on
sensor networks,” IEEE Commun. Mag., vol. 40, no. 8, pp. 102–114, Aug. 2002.
[4] M. Malajner, K. Benkic, P. Planinsic, and Z. Cucej, “The accuracy of propa-
gation models for distance measurement between WSN nodes,” in Proc. Int.
IEEE AntEnnAs & ProPAgAtIon MAgAzInE february 2017
Conf. Systems, Signals, and Image Processing, 2009, pp. 1–4.
[5] K. Akkaya and M. Younis, “A survey on routing protocols for wireless sensor
networks,” Ad Hoc Netw., vol. 3, no. 3, pp. 325–349, May 2005.
[6] G. Zhou, T. He, S. Krishnamurthy, and J. A. Stankovic, “Impact of radio
irregularity on wireless sensor networks,” in Proc. Int. Conf. Mobile Systems,
Applications, and Services, 2004, pp. 125–138.
[7] H. Cotuk, K. Bicakci, B. Tavli, and E. Uzun, “The impact of transmission
power control strategies on lifetime of wireless sensor networks,” IEEE Trans.
Comput., vol. 63, no. 11, pp. 2866–2879, 2014.
[8] H. U. Yildiz, B. Tavli, and H. Yanikomeroglu, “Transmission power control for
link level handshaking in wireless sensor networks,” IEEE Sensors J., vol. 16, no. 2,
pp. 561–576, Jan. 2016.
[9] Y. Okumura, E. Ohmori, T. Kawano, and K. Fukua, “Field strength and its
variability in UHF and VHF land mobile radio service,” Rev. Electr. Commun.
Lab., vol. 16, nos. 9–10, pp. 825–873, Sept.–Oct. 1968.
[10] M. Hata, “Empirical formula for propagation loss in land mobile radio
services,” IEEE Trans. Veh. Technol., vol. 29, no. 3, pp. 317–325, Aug. 1980.
[11] COST Telecommunications, “COST Action 231: Digital mobile radio
towards future generation systems—Final report,” European Commission,
Brussels, Belgium, Rep. EUR 18957, 1999.
[12] V. Erceg, L. Greenstein, S. Tjandra, S. Parkoff, A. Gupta, B. Kulic, A.
Julius, and R. Bianchi, “An empirically based path loss model for wireless
channels in suburban environments,” IEEE J. Sel. Areas Commun., vol. 17,
no. 7, pp. 1205–1211, July 1999.
[13] V. Erceg, K. V. S. Hari, M. S. Smith, D. S. Baum, K. P. Sheikh, C. Tap-
penden, J. M. Costa, C. Bushue, A. Sarajedini, R. Schwartz, D. Branlund,
T. Kaitz, and D. Trinkwon, “Channel models for fixed wireless applications,”
IEEE 802.16 Broadband Wireless Access Working Group, Tech. Rep. IEEE
802.16.3c-01/29r4, 2001.
[14] International Telecommunications Union, “Guidelines for evaluation of
radio interface technologies for IMT-advanced,” ITU, Geneva, Switzerland,
Rep. M.2135-1, 2009.
[15] V. Abhayawardhana, I. Wassell, D. Crosby, M. Sellars, and M. Brown,
“Comparison of empirical propagation path loss models for fixed wireless access
systems,” in Proc. IEEE Vehicular Technology Conf., 2005, pp. 73–77.
[16] A. Molisch, Wireless Communications. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley, 2005.
[17] International Telecommunications Union, “Propagation data and prediction
methods for the planning of short-range outdoor radiocommunication systems
and radio local area networks in the frequency range 300 MHz to 100 GHz,”
ITU, Geneva, Switzerland, Rep. ITU-R P.1411-8, 2015.
[18] D. Kotz, C. Newport, R. S. Gray, J. Liu, Y. Yuan, and C. Elliott, “Experimen-
tal evaluation of wireless simulation assumptions,” in Proc. ACM Int. Symp. Mod-
eling, Analysis and Simulation of Wireless and Mobile Systems, 2004, pp. 78–83.
[19] T. Rappaport, Wireless Communications: Principles and Practice, 2nd ed.
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, 2001.
[20] T. K. Sarkar, Z. Ji, K. Kim, A. Medouri, and M. Salazar-Palma, “A survey
of various propagation models for mobile communication,” IEEE Antennas
Propag. Mag., vol. 45, no. 3, pp. 51–82, June 2003.
[21] M. Iskander and Z. Yun, “Propagation prediction models for wireless communication
systems,” IEEE Trans. Microw. Theory Techn., vol. 50, no. 3, pp. 662–672, Mar. 2002.
[22] J. K. Jacoub, R. Liscano, and J. S. Bradbury, “A survey of modeling tech-
niques for wireless sensor networks,” in Proc. Int. Conf. Sensor Technologies and
Applications, 2011, pp. 103–109.
[23] C. F. Garcia-Hernandez, P. H. Ibarguengoytia-Gonzalez, J. Garcia-Hernandez,
and J. A. Perez-Diaz, “Wireless sensor networks and applications: A survey,” Int. J.
Comput. Sci. Netw. Security, vol. 7, no. 3, pp. 264–273, Mar. 2007.
[24] M. Korkalainen and M. Sallinen, “A survey of RF-propagation simulation
tools for wireless sensor networks,” in Proc. Int. Conf. Sensor Technologies and
Applications, 2010, pp. 342–347.
[25] M. Jevtic, N. Zogovic, and G. Dimic, “Evaluation of wireless sen-
sor network simulators,” in Proc. Telecommunications Forum, 2009, pp.
1303–1306.
[26] A. K. Dwivedi and O. P. Vyas, “An exploratory study of experimental tools
for wireless sensor networks,” Wireless Sensor Netw., vol. 3, no. 7, pp. 215–240,
July 2011.
[27] L. D. Mendes and J. J. Rodrigues, “A survey on cross-layer solutions for
wireless sensor networks,” J. Netw. Comput. Appl., vol. 34, no. 2, pp. 523–534,
Mar. 2011.
[28] S. De, C. Qiao, D. Pados, M. Chatterjee, and S. J. Philip, “An integrated
cross-layer study of wireless CDMA sensor networks,” IEEE J. Sel. Areas
Commun., vol. 22, no. 7, pp. 1271–1285, Sept. 2004.
[29] R. Madan, S. Cui, S. Lall, and A. Goldsmith, “Cross-layer design for life-
time maximization in interference-limited wireless sensor networks,” IEEE
Trans. Wireless Commun., vol. 5, no. 11, pp. 3142–3152, Nov. 2006.
19
 This article has been accepted for inclusion in a future issue of this journal. Content is final as presented, with the exception of pagination.
[30] S. Cui, R. Madan, A. Goldsmith, and S. Lall, “Cross-layer energy and delay
optimization in small-scale sensor networks,” IEEE Trans. Wireless Commun.,
vol. 6, no. 10, pp. 3688–3699, Oct. 2007.
[31] N. Baccour, A. Koubâa, L. Mottola, M. A. Z. Niga, H. Youssef, C. A. Boano,
and M. Alves, “Radio link quality estimation in wireless sensor networks: A sur-
vey,” ACM Trans. Sensor Netw., vol. 8, no. 4, pp. 34:1–34:33, Sept. 2012.
[32] I. F. Akyildiz, Z. Suna, and M. C. Vuran, “Signal propagation techniques
for wireless underground communication networks,” Phys. Commun., vol. 2,
no. 3, pp. 167–183, Sept. 2009.
[33] P. Barsocchi, “Channel models for terrestrial wireless communications:
A survey,” National Research Council, Information Science and Technologies
Institute, Pisa, Italy, Tech. Rep. 2006-TR-16, 2006.
[34] F. Dagefu, D. Liao, and K. Sarabandi, “An efficient model for near-ground
wave propagation in the presence of building walls/indoor obstacles,” in Proc.
IEEE Antennas and Propagation Society Int. Symp., 2009, pp. 1–4.
[35] F. Dagefu and K. Sarabandi, “Simulation and measurement of near-ground
wave propagation for indoor scenarios,” in Proc. IEEE Antennas and Propaga-
tion Society Int. Symp., 2010, pp. 1–4.
[36] F. Dagefu and K. Sarabandi, “Analysis and modeling of near-ground wave
propagation in the presence of building walls,” IEEE Trans. Antennas Propag.,
vol. 59, no. 6, pp. 2368–2378, June 2011.
[37] M. Sheikhsofla and K. Sarabandi, “Indoor wave propagation modeling at
low-VHF band,” in Proc. IEEE–APS Topical Conf. Antennas and Propagation in
Wireless Communications, 2014, pp. 778–781.
[38] L. Boithais, Radio Wave Propagation. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1987.
[39] C. Haslett, Essentials of Radio Wave Propagation. Cambridge, U.K.:
Cambridge Univ. Press, 2008.
[40] A. Goldsmith, Wireless Communications. Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge
Univ. Press, 2005.
[41] C. A. Balanis, Antenna Theory: Analysis and Design. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley, 2005.
[42] H. T. Friis, “A note on a simple transmission formula,” Proc. IRE, vol. 34,
no. 5, pp. 254–256, May 1946.
[43] M. Born and E. Wolf, Principles of Optics. Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge
Univ. Press, 1999.
[44] C. V. Raman and K. S. Krishnan, “On the diffraction of light by spherical
obstacles,” Proc. Phys. Soc. Lond., vol. 38, no. 1, p. 350, Aug. 1925.
[45] J. B. Keller, “Geometrical theory of diffraction,” J. Opt. Soc. Amer.,
vol. 52, no. 2, pp. 116–130, Feb. 1962.
[46] D. Liao and K. Sarabandi, “An approximate numerical model for simulation
of long-distance near-ground radiowave propagation over random terrain pro-
files,” in Proc. IEEE Military Communications Conf., 2007, pp. 1–7.
[47] R. Foran, T. Welch, and M. Walker, “Very near ground radio frequency
propagation measurements and analysis for military applications,” in Proc. IEEE
Military Communications Conf., 1999, pp. 336–340.
[48] R. C. Bernhardt, “The effect of path loss models on the simulated perfor-
mance of portable radio systems,” in Proc. IEEE Global Telecommunications
Conf. and Exhibition, 1989, pp. 1356–1360.
[49] M. Rodriguez, R. Feick, H. Carrasco, R. Valenzuela, M. Derpich, and L.
Ahumada, “Wireless access channels with near-ground level antennas,” IEEE
Trans. Wireless Commun., vol. 11, no. 6, pp. 2204–2211, June 2012.
[50] T. Yadav and P. P. Bhattacharya, “Signal strength and system operating mar-
gin estimation for vehicular ad-hoc networks in Rayleigh fading environment,”
Int. J. Comput. Sci. Mobile Comput., vol. 2, no. 3, pp. 41–45, Mar. 2013.
[51] A. Palaios, Y. Labou, and P. Mahonen, “A study on the forest radio propa-
gation characteristics in European mixed forest environment,” in Proc. IEEE
Military Communications Conf., 2014, pp. 376–381.
[52] J. Salo, L. Vuokko, and P. Vainikainen, “Why is shadow fading lognormal?”
in Proc. Int. Symp. Wireless Personal Multimedia Communications, 2005,
pp. 522–526.
[53] E. M. Failli, “Digital land mobile radio communications—Final report,”
Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, Luxembourg,
Tech. Rep. COST 207, 1989.
[54] J. F. Janek and J. J. Evans, “Predicting ground effects of omnidirec-
tional antennas in wireless sensor networks,” Wireless Sensor Netw., vol. 2,
no. 12, pp. 879–890, Dec. 2010.
[55] B. Tavli, K. Bicakci, R. Zilan, and J. M. Barceló-Ordinas, “A survey of visual
sensor network platforms,” Multimedia Tools Appl., vol. 60, no. 3, pp. 689–726,
Oct. 2012.
[56] G. Anastasi, A. Falchi, A. Passarella, M. Conti, and E. Gregori, “Perfor-
mance measurements of motes sensor networks,” in Proc. ACM Int. Symp.
Modeling, Analysis, and Simulation of Wireless and Mobile Systems, 2004,
pp. 174–181.
[57] J. Dunlop, D. Girma, and J. Irvine, Digital Mobile Communications and the
Tetra System. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley, 2013.
20
[58] T. Stoyanova, F. Kerasiotis, A. Prayati, and G. Papadopoulos, “Evaluation
of impact factors on RSS accuracy for localization and tracking applications,” in
Proc. ACM Int. Workshop on Mobility Management and Wireless Access, 2007,
pp. 9–16.
[59] A. Wang, W. B. Heinzelman, A. Sinha, and A. P. Chandrakasan, “Energy-
scalable protocols for battery-operated microsensor networks,” J. VLSI Signal
Process. Syst. Signal Image Video Technol., vol. 29, no. 3, pp. 223–237, Nov.
2001.
[60] J. N. Al-Karaki, R. Ul-Mustafa, and A. E. Kamal, “Data aggregation and
routing in wireless sensor networks: Optimal and heuristic algorithms,” Comput.
Netw., vol. 53, no. 7, pp. 945–960, May 2009.
[61] Z. Cheng, M. Perillo, and W. B. Heinzelman, “General network lifetime
and cost models for evaluating sensor network deployment strategies,” IEEE
Trans. Mobile Comput., vol. 7, no. 4, pp. 484–497, Apr. 2008.
[62] Y. Yun and Y. Xia, “Maximizing the lifetime of wireless sensor networks
with mobile sink in delay-tolerant applications,” IEEE Trans. Mobile Comput.,
vol. 9, no. 9, pp. 1308–1318, Sept. 2010.
[63] W. B. Heinzelman, A. Chandrakasan, and H. Balakrishnan, “An application
specific protocol architecture for wireless microsensor networks,” IEEE Trans.
Wireless Commun., vol. 1, no. 4, pp. 660–670, Oct. 2002.
[64] E. F. Lee, C. Wang, and L. Xiao, “A study of radio signal behaviors in
complex environments,” Department of Computer Science, Michigan State
University, East Lansing, Tech. Rep. MSU-CSE-06-6, 2006.
[65] M. Zuniga and B. Krishnamachari, “Analyzing the transitional region in low
power wireless links,” in Proc. IEEE Int. Conf. Sensing, Communication, and
Networking, 2004, pp. 517–526.
[66] A. Martinez-Sala, J. M. Molina-Garcia-Pardo, E. Egea-Lopez, J. Vales-
Alonso, L. Juan-Llacer, and J. Garcia-Haro, “An accurate radio channel
model for wireless sensor networks simulation,” J. Commun. Netw., vol. 7,
no. 4, pp. 401–407, Dec. 2005.
[67] D. Wang, L. Song, X. Kong, and Z. Zhang, “Near-ground path loss
measurements and modeling for wireless sensor networks at 2.4 GHz,”
Int. J. Distributed Sensor Netw., vol. 8, no. 8, p. 969712, 2012.
[68] C. Suh, J. E. Joung, and Y. B. Ko, “New RF models of the TinyOS simula-
tor for IEEE 802.15.4 standard,” in Proc. IEEE Wireless Communications and
Networking Conf., 2007, pp. 2236–2240.
[69] R. Belmonte, S. Fast, and J. Schuster, “comparison of near earth propaga-
tion over layered media,” in Proc. IEEE Military Communications Conf., 2008,
pp. 1–6.
[70] J. C. Giacomin, L. H. A. Correia, T. Heimfarth, G. M. Pereira, V. F. Silva,
and J. L. P. D. Santana, “Radio channel model of wireless sensor networks oper-
ating in 2.4 GHz ISM band,” INFOCOMP, vol. 9, no. 1, pp. 98–106, Mar. 2010.
[71] N. Wang, N. Zhang, and M. Wang, “Wireless sensors in agriculture and
food industry–recent development and future perspective,” Comput. Electron.
Agri., vol. 50, no. 1, pp. 1–14, Jan. 2006.
[72] T. Stoyanova, F. Kerasiotis, A. Prayati, and G. Papadopoulos, “A practical
RF propagation model for wireless network sensors,” in Proc. Int. Conf. Sensor
Technologies and Applications, 2009, pp. 194–199.
[73] A. Cerpa, J. Wong, L. Kuang, M. Potkonjak, and D. Estrin, “Statistical
model of lossy links in wireless sensor networks,” in Proc. Association for Com-
puting Machinery/IEEE Int. Symp. Information Processing in Sensor Networks,
2005, pp. 81–88.
[74] J. Polastre, R. Szewczyk, and D. Culler, “Telos: Enabling ultra-low power
wireless research,” in Proc. Association for Computing Machinery/IEEE Int.
Symp. Information Processing in Sensor Networks, 2005, pp. 364–369.
[75] K. Bilinska, M. Filo, and R. Krystowski. (2007). Mica, Mica2, MicaZ.
[Online]. Available: http://wwwpub.zih.tu-dresden.de/dargie/wsn/slides/
students/MICA.ppt
[76] M. Maurya and S. R. N. Shukla, “Current wireless sensor nodes (motes):
Performance metrics and constraints,” Int. J. Adv. Res. Electron. Commun.
Eng., vol. 2, no. 1, pp. 45–48, Jan. 2012.
[77] A. Seema and M. Reisslein, “Towards efficient wireless video sensor net-
works: A survey of existing node architectures and proposal for a Flexi-WVSNP
design,” Commun. Surveys Tuts., vol. 13, no. 3, pp. 462–486, 2011.
[78] D. Cavalcanti, S. Das, J. Wang, and K. Challapali, “Cognitive radio based
wireless sensor networks,” in Proc. Int. Conf. Computer Communications and
Networks, 2008, pp. 1–6.
[79] H. U. Yildiz, M. Temiz, and B. Tavli, “Impact of limiting hop count on
the lifetime of wireless sensor networks,” IEEE Commun. Lett., vol. 19, no. 4,
pp. 569–572, Apr. 2015.
[80] Texas Instruments, “CC1000 single chip very low power RF transceiver,”
Texas Instruments, Dallas, TX, Tech. Rep. SWRS048A, 2009.
february 2017 IEEE AntEnnAs & ProPAgAtIon MAgAzInE