Remote interchanges support the Internet of Things and key to the accomplishment of the IoT has been LPWAN innovation. In this ppt we have done Comparative Study of Lora & Sigfox using MATLAB

1. Comparative Study of Lora & Sigfox
Submitted To: Submitted By:
Proff. Piyush Tiwari Jatin(2K19/EC/081)
Keshav(2K19/EC/091)

2. As the name implies, Low-Power Wide-Area Networks (LPWANs) allow for low power consumption
over a wide area, aka long range.
Messages sent over LPWAN must be small and simple. For machines, decreasing the amount of data sent
(the bandwidth) means lower energy at range.

3. The need of IOT and M2M application pose some unique requirements on LPWAN technologies as shown in
comparison with other wireless technologies:

5.  Proprietary wireless technology developed by Semtech.
 PHY radio protocol for IOT .
 Derivative of Chirp Spread Spectrum.
 Designed for long range, low power and low data rate.
 At +14dbm output power, 868MHz
 Up to 5km range in urban environment & up to 15km suburban
 >10 year battery life capability
 Star topology (not mesh or p2p)
 Robust Communication
 Not susceptible interference from WIFI, Bluetooth, GSM, LTE etc.
 Bits to kilobytes per second
 depending upon channel width & modulation

6.  Sigfox is a French global network operator founded in 2010
 Sigfox is a narrowband (or ultra-narrowband) technology
 It uses a standard radio transmission method called binary phase-shift
keying (BPSK)
 Designed for long range, low power and low data rate.
 Highly resistant to noise
 Random Access
 Bidirectional functionality
 Cloud based Core Network
 Highly secure

7. Comparison of Lora & Sigfox
(in terms of IOT factor)

8. Quality of Service(QOS)
 Both Sigfox and LoRa employ unlicensed spectra and asynchronous communication protocols.
 Sigfox occupies 100 Hz and operates at 433MHz, 868MHz and 915MHz frequencies depending on the
geographical regions.
 LoRaWAN has similar policies to prevent network congestion allowing channels to be available only %1
duty-cycle for EU 868MHz.
Energy Consumption & Latency
 Sigfox & LoRa end-devices are in sleep mode most of the time outside operation, which reduce the amount of
consumed energy.
 Sigfox has the lowest power consumption performance as compared to other LPWAN technologies but LORaWAN is
more energy efficient than Sigfox.
 Sigfox, LoRa provides class C to handle low-bidirectional latency at the expense of increased energy consumption.
Network Coverage & Range
 Sigfox has longer range than Lora.

9. Comparative Case Study
(on Lora & Sigfox Technology)

10.  LoRa is a proprietary spread spectrum
modulation scheme that is derivative of
Chirp Spread Spectrum modulation
(CSS) and which trades data rate for
sensitivity within a fixed channel
bandwidth.
 Sigfox is using 192KHz of the publicly
available band to exchange messages over
the air. The modulation is Ultranarrow band.
Each message is 100 Hz wide and transferred
with a data rate of 100 or 600 bits per second
depending on the region.

11.  Benefits: Benefits:
OR
High Robustness
Lower susceptibility to
multipath fading
Enhanced Network capacity
Doppler Resistant
High Sensitivity
High message capacity
Efficient spectrum occupancy
Higher Resistant to noise

12. o 500 random messages with each 25 bytes.
o Green represents successful transmissions.
o Red represents collision with the same SF.
o 3 random messages were sent by each 1000 devices.
o Green represents successful transmissions.
o Red represents collision.

13.  This figure shows the relation of the number of
collisions while sending up to 1000 (25 byte)
messages / minute using SF7, resulting a short
message (36 ms).
 This results in the graph below where the number of
collisions are shown but only when the 3 messages
of 1 devices are not received it will results in a failed
transmission (packet error).

15. - Very Low Cost
- Global Network
- Low Power & predictability
power consumption
- Anti-jamming
- Out of the box connectivity
- Service level agreement
- Low Cost
- Large payload
- High data rate in short
range
- Possibility to purchase
own base station
Nationwide Network Types
Agriculture
Water/Gas meters
Supply chain & logistics
Private Network Types
Smart City
Smart Building
Utilities
Key Attributes
Examples of Application

16. For Lora For Sigfox
//Code for Lora Packet Collision Simulation
timespan = 60*1000; %ms
timeinterval = 10; %ms
nrofslots = timespan/timeinterval;
freqspan = 125e3; %hz : 125khz -> 868.7 - 869.2
MHZ
freqinterval = 100; %hz
nrofchannels = 6;
ft = zeros(nrofslots, nrofchannels);
nrofdevices = 500;
nrofpackets = 1;
packetduration = 2000;
%LORA
% SF bitrate(bps) duration (for 25 bytes)
lora_duration = [12 293 682;
11 547 365;
10 976 204;
09 1757 113;
08 3125 64;
07 5478 36;
//Code For Sigfox Packet Collision Simulation
timespan = 60*1000; %ms
timeinterval = 10; %ms
nrofslots = timespan/timeinterval;
freqspan = 200e3; %hz : 125khz -> 868.7 - 869.2
MHZ
freqinterval = 100; %hz
nrofchannels = ceil(freqspan / freqinterval);
ft = zeros(nrofslots, nrofchannels);
nrofdevices = 1000;
nrofpackets = 3;
packetduration = 2000;
colission = zeros(nrofdevices, nrofpackets);
freq = randi([1 nrofchannels], [nrofdevices
nrofpackets]);
time = randi([1 nrofslots -
(packetduration*nrofpackets)/timeinterval],
[nrofdevices 1]);
for i = 1:nrofdevices

17.  SigFox is the best solution for public network when LoRaWAN is a really great solution
every-time you will operate your own private network.
 Sigfox is simple when LoRaWAN is customizable.
 If national or international coverage is important, then it probably needs to be SigFox.
 When gateways are less, the PER of Lora is almost 10 times SigFox.
 Sigfox consumes least energy but Lora is energy efficient.
 LoRa is likely the better option if you need true bidirectionality because of the symmetric
link.
 Both technologies are working toward optimization for FCC use.
In short:
Which LPWAN technology is best for your IOT project?
So, if your aim is to connect a larger number of IoT devices securely at one corporate site with inadequate cellular
network coverage, and if the amounts of data and number of messages are limited, LoRaWAN can be used as a
local IoT network.

18. References
[1] …………. https://lora-developers.semtech.com/library/tech-papers-and-guides/lora-and- lorawan/
[2] …………. https://linuxembedded.fr/2020/03/introduction-a-sigfox
[3] …………. https://www.frugalprototype.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/an1200.22.pdf
[4]………….https://iot.telekom.com/resource/blob/data/492968/420eb395f967f41e7b7dc9eb42ef0933/mobile-iot-
network-comparison-nb-iot-lorawan-sigfox.pdf
[5] ………… https://www.geeksforgeeks.org/difference-between-lorawan-and-sigfox/
[6]…………https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6387435/#:~:text=Among%20others%2C%20evaluation%20re
sults%20show,as%20the%20message%20transmission%20rate
[7]…………https://www.researchgate.net/publication/339195553_LoRa_An_extension_of_LoRaWAN_protocol_to_reduc
e_infrastructure_costs_by_improving_the_Quality_of_Service/link/5fccdf4445851568d1431e0d/download

19. A BIG SALUTE TO CORONA WARRIORS