2013 IEEE Wireless Communications and Networking Conference (WCNC): MAC
Performance Analysis of a Multi-PHY Coexistence
Mechanism for IEEE 802.15.4g FSK Network
Chin-Sean Sum*, Fumihide Kojima, and Hiroshi Harada
National Institute of Information and Communications Technology (NICT), Yokosuka, Japan.
*Email: sum@nict.go.jp
Abstract—This paper analyzes the performance of a realistic
multi-PHY layer IEEE 802.15.4g Smart Utility Networks (SUN)
design and proposes a coexistence approach for multi-PHY
interference management. Technical details of the design such
as network architecture, mechanism protocols, signal formats,
device interfaces, regulatory requirements and channel charac-
terization are implemented following the IEEE 802.15.4g SUN
specification. The performance evaluation is conducted in a cross-
layer computer simulation based on the MAC (medium access
control) and multi-PHY technical specification in the standard
with realistic application scenarios and channel characteristics.
To manage the interference in the system, a Multi-PHY Man-
agement (MPM) protocol is proposed and evaluated. The MPM
is adopted in the current IEEE 802.15.4g standard. As a result,
the coexistence mechanism is observed to be able to improve the
victim throughput performance up to 25%. It is also found that
the throughput degradation in a non-beacon-enabled network is
50% worse than the degradation in a beacon-network.
Keywords: Multi-PHY layer, coexistence, IEEE 802.15.4g,
smart utility networks
I. I NTRODUCTION
Smart Utility Network (SUN) is the next generation util-
ity network with advanced wireless technologies facilitating
enhanced key technologies such as advanced metering in-
frastructure and demand response. IEEE 802.15.4 is a series
of standards specifying communication protocols for low
rate wireless personal area network (LR-WPAN) [1]. Primary
applications for IEEE 802.15.4 are sensor networks, personal
area network consumer electronics and others. To provide
IEEE 802.15.4 with the amendment to realize the applications
in SUN, IEEE 802.15.4g, a task group was appointed to
specify the communication protocols and air interface enabling
technologies. The standard specification for IEEE 802.15.4g
was completed and published in April 2012 [2].
IEEE 802.15.4g specifies alternative physical (PHY) layer
design optimized for applications in the SUN arena. A total
of three PHY layers are defined under the control of a
unified medium access control (MAC) layer, specified in IEEE
802.15.4, with some amendments by IEEE 802.15.4e and
IEEE 802.15.4g. The main rationale of having multiple PHY
layers is to target different market segments. Detailed descrip-
tions on the multi-PHY layers, MAC layer and corresponding
regulatory information can be found in Section II.
The multi-PHY layer design is expected to provide higher
level of flexibility and diversity from the aspects of penetrating
the market and addressing timely needs. On the other hand,
978-1-4673-5939-9/13/$31.00 ©2013 IEEE 41
this flexibility is obtained at the expense of potential inter-
ference among different PHY layer designs in a single IEEE
802.15.4g network. Conventional LR-WPAN systems do not
commonly have multiple PHY layers specified for the same
application type, hence creating a new engineering problem.
We have raised and analyzed the impact of this issue in [3].
With millions of SUN devices already in the market, and
many more to be deployed following the publication of the
standard, the interference problem has to be resolved with
utmost urgency to ensure the reliability of the utility service.
Therefore, it is evident that an effective coexistence assur-
ance policy is essential for the deployment of SUN devices. To
the best knowledge of the authors, proposal of such schemes
are minimal, if not non-existent. In par with this vision and
mission, the authors have evaluated and presented the impact
of the multi-PHY interference (IPI) among networks with
different PHY layer designs. To manage and mitigate the IPI,
a coexistence mechanism, Multi-PHY Management (MPM)
protocol employing a common medium between PHY layers
known as Common Signaling Mode (CSM) is proposed and
analyzed.
Extensive computer simulations were carried out to examine
the impact of IPI and the improvement achievable through the
MPM/CSM approach. The computer simulation incorporates
a cross-layer design involving all layers from transportation
layer down to the PHY layer and taking into consideration
actual regulatory-specific frequency bands. While layers above
the network layer utilize existing protocols, the design, evalu-
ation and optimization are focused on the MAC layer and the
multi-PHY layers. The output results feature the impact of IPI
and effectiveness of MPM/CSM from a network simulation
perspective.
The contribution of this paper is two-fold: (a) evaluating
the impact of IPI in a realistic IEEE 802.15.4g system and (b)
proposing an interference management and mitigation method
for the interference problem. The preliminary discussion of the
topic has been reported in [4], presenting the MPM approach
without extensive simulation results. It is also worth to note
that this approach was proposed by the authors and was
included into the IEEE 802.15.4g standard.
II. IEEE 802.15.4 G S YSTEM D ESIGN
A. MAC Layer Design
The base medium access control (MAC) layer design for
low rate WPAN is specified in [1]. There are two device
categories, the full-function device (FFD) and the reduced-
function device (RFD). An IEEE 802.15.4g network consists
of at least one coordinator and a device. A coordinator is an
FFD, while other devices in the network may be either FFDs or
RFDs. The coordinator is responsible for controlling the timing
and resource management of the network. A network may
either be in beacon-enabled mode and non-beacon-enabled
mode. A beacon-enabled mode has the coordinator trans-
mitting beacons to surrounding devices periodically. Upon
receiving the beacons, the devices may associate with the
coordinator to form communication links. The process where
the devices scans for the beacon is known as passive scanning.
On the other hand, a network in non-beacon-enabled mode
requires devices intending to join a network to send beacon
request to the coordinator. Only upon receiving the beacon
request, will the coordinator sends the beacon. This process is
known as active scanning.
B. PHY Layer Design
In order to target different market segments and applica-
tion requirements, three alternative PHY layer designs are
proposed. The multi-rate frequency shift keying (MR-FSK)
is proposed to provide good transmit power efficiency due to
the constant envelope of the signal. The multi-rate orthogonal
frequency division multiplexing (MR-OFDM) is designed to
provide higher data rates in channels with frequency selective
fading. And the multi-rate offset quadrature phase shift keying
(MR-OQPSK) shares the same characteristics with [1], thus
making multi-mode systems more cost-effective and easier to
design.
The MR-FSK PHY may either be unfiltered or with a
Gaussian filter. Convolutional coding may be used as the
forward error correction. The data rates supported by MR-
FSK range from 5kbps to 400kbps. The MR-OFDM PHY
uses fast Fourier transform sizes of 128, 64, 32 and 16, with
binary phase shift keying, quadrature phase shift keying and
16-quadrature amplitude modulation. Data rate ranging from
50kbps up to 800kbps can be supported. The MR-O-QPSK
PHY uses the direct sequence spread spectrum to spread the
band across a wider bandwidth. The modulation is raised
cosine shaped O-QPSK. The data rates range from 6kbps up
to 500kbps.
C. Regulatory Domains
Among the most commonly implemented, are the frequency
bands applicable in regulatory-domains such as US (920-928
MHz band), Europe (863-870 MHz), Japan (920-928 MHz)
and China (470-510 MHz). The detailed list of applicable
bands can be found in [2]. In this paper, addressing the
common portion of most bands, the sub-1-GHz bands in the
range of 900 MHz are considered in the channel modeling and
evaluations. Note that all three alternative PHYs are enabled
and specified in most of the regulatory-domains.
42
III. P OTENTIAL D EGRADATION IN A M ULTI -PHY L AYER
N ETWORK
In a conventional IEEE 802.15.4 network where only a
single PHY layer is involved, passive or active scanning is
applied to detect and avoid formation of multiple asynchronous
networks in the same location. On the other hand, an IEEE
802.15.4g system may consist of several networks operating
with different PHY layer designs in close proximity. When
this happens, inter-PHY-interference (IPI) may occur, causing
degradation to the system. For instance, in a beacon-enabled
mode, when an MR-FSK device intends to start a network,
it first performs passive scanning. If no beacon is received,
the device then proceeds to broadcast beacons. Next, other
MR-FSK devices may perform passive scanning, capture the
FSK beacon and join the network. In the IEEE 802.15.4g case,
since there are three different PHY layer design, it is possible
that there is a device with a different PHY, for example, an
MR-OFDM device powering on in close proximity. In this
case, even with the MR-OFDM device performing passive
scanning, it will not be able to capture the FSK beacon with
its OFDM receiver. This MR-ODFM device will proceed to
start its own OFDM network by broadcasting OFDM beacon.
As a result, an MR-FSK network and an MR-ODFM network
are formed in close proximity, causing IPI to each other. In
realistic scenarios, there may be more than two networks in
the same location generating mutual IPI. The modeling of IPI
is given in Section III-A.
A. Interference Model
In this paper, a realistic multi-PHY layer network is mod-
eled to simulate the IPI generated when an interfering network
collides with a victim network. The victim is set as the MR-
FSK network while the interferer is the MR-OFDM network.
Referring to IEEE 802.15.4g [2], several data rate modes for
MR-FSK and MR-OFDM are chosen as the interfering and
victim signal. The following are the operating modes: (DR -
200kHz
FSK mode 1
400kHz
FSK mode 2
600kHz
FSK mode 3
OFDM Option
3 MCS 3
OFDM Option
4 MCS 3
920.9MHz
channel
920.8MHz
920.6MHz
920.4MHz
920.2MHz
Fig. 1. Illustration of spectral occupancy and overlaps for MR-FSK and
MR-OFDM PHYs with respective center frequencies and channel spacing.
This example shows the 920-928MHz Japanese band.
 TABLE I
data rate; CS - channel spacing; MCS - modulation and coding M ODELING OF P ROTOCOL L AYERS
scheme)
Layer Models Description
• MR-FSK mode 1: DR 50kbps; CS 200kHz
Above network Existing traffic models in Qualnet (constant bit rate
• MR-FSK mode 2: DR 100kbps; CS 400kHz
protocol (CBR), super application etc.)
• MR-FSK mode 3: DR 200kbps; CS 400kHz Network proto- IPv4
• MR-OFDM option 3 MCS 3: DR 200kbps; CS 400kHz col
MAC protocol Base MAC layer employing IEEE 802.15.4 Sensor
• MR-OFDM option 4 MCS 3: DR 100kbps; CS 200kHz
Network Library. New protocol design for MPM
The interference model between different PHY layer design scheduling mechanism in both beacon-enabled and
is illustrated in Figure 1, giving an example in the 920- non-beacon-enabled networks
PHY models New IEEE 802.15.4g PHY layer MR-FSK and MR-
928MHz Japanese band with interactions among different OFDM signaling models. New PHY layer protocols
operating modes of MR-FSK and MR-OFDM PHY layers. such as timing mechanism and interference model.
The effective interference power Pbi generated from the MR-
OFDM interferer to the MR-FSK victim can be expressed as:
 Application Layer

 Pi ,

 Application message

 for fv − Wv /2 < fi − Wi /2 < fv + Wv /2





Transport Layer

 && fv − Wv /2 < fi + Wi /2 < fv + Wv /2

 TCP/UDP datagram
 Pi × W
 Wi ,
v

 Network Layer

 for fv − Wv /2 ≥ fi − Wi /2 &&



 IP packet
fv + Wv /2 ≤ fi + Wi /2
Pbi = (1) MCPS-SAP MLME-SAP

 P i × (f i + W i /2 − f v + W v /2)/W i , MAC Common Part Sublayer MAC layer management entity



 for fv − Wv /2 ≥ fi − Wi /2 &&

 - CSMA/CA - Association

 - Retransmission
- Synchronization

 fv − Wv /2 < fi + Wi /2 < fv + Wv /2 - Superframe management

 - Multi-PHY management (MPM)
Pi × (fv + Wv /2 − fi + Wi /2)/Wi ,


 MAC command

 for fv − Wv /2 < fi − Wi /2 < fv + Wv /2
MAC data frame
frame


 PD-SAP PLME-SAP
&& fv + Wv /2 ≥ fi + Wi /2 PHY layer management entity
PHY Layer
where Pi is the power of the interferer i.e. MR-OFDM signal, - BER-based receiver BER table
- Energy detection
- Channel switch
fi is the center frequency of the interferer signal i.e. MR-FSK model - Interference model
signal, Wi is the CS of the interferer signal, fv is the center - Common Signaling Mode (CSM)

frequency of the victim signal, Wv is the CS of the victim

signal, and && represents operation AND.
IV. D ESIGN OF C OEXISTENCE M ECHANISM FOR IEEE
802.15.4 G M ULTI -PHY L AYER
In order to avoid the IPI generated, this paper proposes a
MAC multi-PHY management (MPM) mechanism employing
a Common Signaling Mode (CSM) PHY signal. The funda-
mental idea of this mechanism is to schedule mutual detection
by either passive or active scanning of devices through a
commonly predefined common signaling. Details of the design
are given in the following sections.
A. System Design Philosophy
The system modeling and evaluation are conducted using
the system simulation tool Qualnet and Matlab. The event-
based simulation in the MAC layer is modeled in Qualnet
while the link layer simulation in the PHY layer is modeled
using Matlab. All other upper layers are included in Qualnet.
The summary of the existing features in the multiple layers
are shown in Table I.
Based on the features in Table I, we have constructed the
basic architecture of the IEEE 802.15.4 with new functions
added to the protocol stack. Figure 2 shows the multiple stacks
in the layers. At the wireless channel, sub-1-GHz channel
Propagation Models
(Path loss, shadowing , fading)
Fig. 2. Protocol stack for the IEEE 802.15.4g device with MPM and CSM
functionalities.
characterization is included in the propagation models. In the
PHY layer, IEEE 802.15.4g has two planes in the device
architecture, the data plane and the management plane. The
management plane uses the PHY layer management entity
(PLME) and interfaces with the upper layer through the PLME
service access point (SAP). On the other hand, the data
plane uses the PHY data (PD) SAP. The PLME and PD is
connected to the MAC layer through MAC command frame
and MAC data frame. In the MAC sublayer, the MAC layer
management entity (MLME) uses the MLME-SAP while the
MAC data uses the MAC Common Part Sublayer (MCPS)
SAP. The connection to the network layer is the internet
protocol (IP) packet. Further upper, there are the Transmission
Control Protocol (TCP) and User Datagram Protocol (UDP)
for connecting the transport layer. Finally the application
message connects the application layer. All layers above the
MAC sublayer are referred to as next higher layers (NHL).

43
 Device 1 Device 2
operating in a particular channel. In a beacon-enabled network,
NHL MLME
CSM
FSK PLME
CSM device 2 periodically broadcasts enhanced beacons in CSM
PLME PLME
to notify surrounding devices not of the same PHY of its
Power on
Scan request Set TRX on (set existence. Device 1, upon power on, performs passive scan
parameters) to detect the CSM enhanced beacon. The enhanced beacon
Confirm contains all the necessary information about the network of
device 2. If an enhanced beacon is received, device 1 knows
Beacon
Only
request
Enhanced that an existing network is operating in the region and will
applicable
for Active Confirm
beacon request activate counter-measures to avoid generating interference,
Scanning particularly IPI in this case scenario. In Figure 3, note that
Enhanced primitives exchanged between different layers are such as
beacon PLME and MLME for the management plane as well as MCPS
Indication
and PD for the data plane. Frames such as enhanced beacons
Sperframe

Enhanced
beacon
Indication
and data frames are exchanged between devices through the
wireless medium.
Additionally, in a non-beacon-enabled network, device 2
WIRELESS MEDIUM

Set TRX off

Confirm does not periodically broadcast notification signals to preserve
enhanced Confirm
beacon energy. In this case, device 1 employs active scanning upon
Channel Switch

scanned power on, sending a request for the enhanced beacon. Device
Set parameters
Channel switch
(switch channel)
2 responds with an enhanced beacon if receives a request.
The rest of the protocol are the same. The incorporation of
Confirm
active scanning in the MPM protocol allows a higher degree
of optimization specifically in the area of energy consumption.
With the use of non-beacon-enabled MPM network, IEEE
Fig. 3. Message sequence chart for MPM employing CSM. General case 802.15.4g is able to cover more diversified scenarios meeting
for passive scanning case and specific case on active scanning. different application and system demands.
In this paper, to evaluate and compare the different per-
formance, we have also included the operation of a simple
The mechanism facilitating interface and communication energy detector. In this case, device 1 and 2 do not have the
between layers are known as primitives. Each primitive has transceiver of CSM. Enhanced beacons from device 1 are sent
a set of parameters associated with the related functionalities. employing the PHY of device 1, and receiver of device 2 will
Some typical primitives are transceiver (TRX) parameter set- be operating in the PHY of device 2.
tings, beacon request, status indication and status confirmation.
Note that these primitives are exchanged within the same C. Common Signaling Mode
device among different layers. Besides primitives, frames are In order to increase the probability of detecting the enhanced
also specified to facilitate communication between devices. A beacon in the MPM, it is essential that the receiver is not
frame is set through the wireless medium and is exchanged relying on a simple energy detection but employ a receiver
between different devices. In this paper, frames used to enable with higher detection accuracy. For this purpose, a commonly
and evaluate the coexistence mechanism are the enhanced predefined signaling scheme is important. There are several
beacon frame, acknowledgment frame and data frame. factors influencing the determination of the choice of CSM:
(a) the implementation simplicity, (b) popularity among im-
B. Multi-PHY Management plementers and (c) power efficiency.
To enable detection between networks operating in differ- As a result, mode 1 in MR-FSK was chosen by the imple-
ent PHY layer designs, the Multi-PHY Management (MPM) menters of all the PHY layers in IEEE 802.15.4g. The speci-
mechanism is specified. MPM is a protocol requiring an fication of MR-FSK mode 1 are: binary FSK with modulation
existing network coordinator to send out periodical notification index of 1, CS of 200kHz, and DR of 50kbps. The rationale
signal to surrounding alien devices. To overcome the problem of this choice lies in the relative simplicity of FSK circuits
of a device with a different PHY layer to misdetect the as compared to others such as OFDM and DSSS, large scale
notification signal, a Common Signaling Mode (CSM) is used of real-world implementation and operation, as well as the
for sending the notification signal. CSM is detailed in Section technical superiority of good power efficiency with constant
IV-C. To increase the probability of the potential interfering envelope. The IEEE 802.15.4g standard [2] specifies that CSM
device to capture the notification signal, timing parameters are is required to be satisfied in the regulatory domains with
modified as a part of the MPM specification. more than one PHY layer specified. These regulatory domains
Figure 3 shows the message sequence chart (MSC) between are 2480-2483.5MHz (worldwide), 902-928MHz (US), 863-
device 1 (a potential interfering device) and device 2 (an 870MHz (Europe), 920-928MHz (Japan) and 470-510MHz
existing device operating in the current channel). Device 2 is (China).

44
 TABLE II
S IMULATION PARAMETER S ETTINGS
Parameter Value
Network radius 45m
Network type beacon-enabled and non-beacon-
enabled
Interferer TX power 5dBm
Victim TX power 5dBm
No. of victim device 10
Victim network MR-FSK mode 2
Victim transmission interval 10s
TI
Typical frame size L 20 octets
Interferer network MR-OFDM Option 4 MCS 3
CSM FSK mode 1
Frequency band 920-928MHz [5], [6]
Path loss Hata Urban Model [7]
Shadowing mean 4dB
V. P ERFORMANCE A NALYSIS
Based on the proposed design for the MPM/CSM coexis-
tence protocol, computer simulation is conducted to investigate
the performance degradation and achievable improvement. In
the simulations, the network radius is set to 45m, centered
at the coordinator. Surrounding devices are powered on ran-
domly. In a beacon-enabled network, devices perform passive
scan while in a non-beacon-enabled network, devices perform
active scan requesting for a beacon.
First, the victim network is set as the MR-FSK network.
The victim network is the existing network operating in a
particular area. Next, an MR-OFDM network acting as the
interfering network is allowed to deploy in close proximity
of the victim network. MPM/CSM coexistence protocol is
included in the simulation to examine its effectiveness by
evaluating the performance with and without it. In this paper,
the MR-FSK network is operating at FSK mode 2 while the
MR-OFDM network is operating at option 4 MCS 3, both
100kbps data rate modes. The CSM, when activated by the
MPM protocol, is FSK mode 1 operating at 50kbps. The frame
formats, primitives and PHY/MAC attributes are specified
according to the technical design in the standard [2].
Table II summarizes the parameter settings for computer
simulation in both the Qualnet and Matlab environments.
A. Inter-PHY-Interference and Improvement of MPM Protocol
Figure 4 shows the average device throughput of the victim
network. In this evaluation, three approaches are considered,
unsynchronized, energy detection and MPM. The unsynchro-
nized approach is having no means to manage interference
the victim network and the potential interferer network. The
energy detection approach is having the coordinator of the
potential interfering network to simply detect the energy of
the victim network’s enhanced beacon before deploying its
own network. The MPM/CSM approach is the one proposed in
this paper. Note that the average device throughput falls around
12bps. This is because average device throughput is defined as
the average throughput across the total duration, e.g. 20 octets
45
12.8
Victim average thro ughput
12.7
12.6
(bps)
12.5 Unsynchronized
MPM
12.4
Energy detection
12.3
12.2
10 20 30 40 50
Interferer device num ber
Fig. 4. Number of interferer device vs. victim average throughput in varying
coexistence mechanism.
transmission every 10s interval. The theoretical throughput is
TI , where L is frame length in octets, Ts is the symbol
8LTs R
duration and TI is the frame transmission interval. In this
evaluation, for the victim system, we are using L=20, Ts =10µs
and TI =10s, giving the theoretical throughput of 16bps. Other
parameter settings are summarized in Table II.
It is observed that the unsynchronized approach has the
worst performance of the three. As the number of devices in
the interferer network gradually increases to 50, the average
throughput decreases from 12.55bps to 12.25bps, a 2.5%
drop. On the other hand, by employing the energy detection
approach, the throughput degradation can be maintained at
12.4bps at 50 interferer devices. When MPM/CSM is em-
ployed, there is no clear observation on throughput degradation
despite increasing number of interferer devices. Device aver-
age throughput is at remained 12.65bps. This is reasonable
because with MPM/CSM, two multi-PHY networks can be
scheduled to detect each other as if they are homogeneous.
B. Impact of Device Transmission Interval
Figure 5 shows the victim network average device through-
put corresponding to different transmission interval of the
interfering network. In Figure 5(a), victim and interfering
networks are left to be deployed randomly without any coexis-
tence approach, while in Figure 5(b), MPM/CSM is activated.
Other parameter settings are summarized in Table II.
In Figure 5(a), throughput degradation occurs as devices in
the interfering network increase their transmission interval, i.e.
more frequent frames transmissions. Furthermore, the degra-
dation becomes worse when more devices join the interfering
network. As interferer transmission interval decreases, victim
devices are observed to have a gradually increasing average
throughput. In the worst case scenario, in the presence of
50 interfering devices, each with transmission interval of
0.01s, the average victim device throughput is 10bps. This
is improved by 20% by reducing the interferer transmission
interval to 10s.
On the other hand, as shown in Figure 5(b), for the case
where MPM/CSM is activated, no degradation is observed
in any combinations of the interferer parameter settings. The
 (a) 13 (a) 14 Interferer

V ict im aver age thro ughput

Interferer 12 transmission
Victi m averag e th ro u g h p u t

12.5
device interval
number 10 0.01s
12
10 0.05s
8

( bps )
11.5 20
(b p s)

0.1s
30 6
11 0.5s
40 4
1.0s
10.5 50
2 10.0s
10 10 20 30 40 50
(a)

12
9.5 (b)
0.01s 0.05s 0.1s 0.5s 1.0s 10.0s 11.5
(b)
11
(b) 14 10.5

13 10
12 9.5
0.01s 0.05s 0.1s 0.5s 1.0s 10.0s 9
10 20 30 40 50
In t e rf e re r t ra n s m i s s i o n i n t e rv a l Interferer devi ce number

Fig. 5. Interfering device transmission interval vs. average device throughput. Fig. 6. Number of interfering device vs. average device throughput in a
(a) Unsynchronized approach. (b) MPM/CSM. non-beacon-enabled network. (a) Unsynchronized approach. (b) MPM/CSM.

victim throughput is stable at 13bps. The victim throughput VI. C ONCLUSION

performance becomes independent from the settings of the This paper has presented a realistic evaluation of interfer-
interferer network. There is an approximate 25% improvement ence due multi-PHY layer in IEEE 802.15.4g SUN system.
from the worst case scenario. An interference management and mitigation approach has
also been proposed and the effectiveness has been validated
C. Performance in Non-Beacon-Enabled Network by simulation results. Future works include a more practical
evaluation such as performance in the tree or mesh network
Figure 6 shows the relationship between number of interfer- and different combinations of victim-interferer scenarios.
ing devices and the average victim device throughput in a non-
beacon-enabled network, considering both unsynchronized and R EFERENCES
MPM/CSM scenarios. [1] IEEE Std. 802.15.4-2011, Part 15.4: Low-Rate Wireless Personal Area
Figure 6(a) shows that in a non-beacon-enabled network, Networks (LR-WPANs), Sept. 2011.
[2] IEEE Std. 802.15.4g, Part 15.4: Part 15.4: Low-Rate Wireless Personal
despite the performance curves following the same behavior, a Area Networks (LR-WPANs), Amendment 3: Physical Layer (PHY)
main difference is that the victim average throughput becomes Specifications for Low Data Rate, Wireless, Smart Metering Utility
collectively lower. As the interferer device number increases Networks, April 2012.
[3] Chin-Sean Sum, Hiroshi Harada, Fumihide Kojima, and Lu Liru, ”An
to 50 at transmission interval 0.1s, the average throughput Interference Management Protocol for Multiple Physical Layer in IEEE
degrades to only 4bps, a 50% difference as compared to 802.15.4g Smart Utility Networks,” IEEE Communications Magazine.
beacon-enabled network. (Accepted)
[4] Chin-Sean Sum, Mohammad Azizur Rahman, Chen Sun, Fumihide Ko-
In Figure 6(b), when MPM/CSM is activated, two major jima, and Hiroshi Harada, ”Performance of Common Signaling Mode for
observations are obtained: there is a slight degradation of the Multi-PHY Management in Smart Utility Networks,” IEEE International
Conference on Communication (ICC) 2011, Workshop on Smart Grid
mean average throughput at around 10.5bps, and performance Communications, Kyoto, Japan, 5-9 June 2011, pp. 1-5.
in the presence of different interferer parameter settings give [5] T. Rappaport, et. al., ”900-MHz Multipath Propagation Measurements
a more fluctuated performance, unlike the stable throughput for U.S. Digital Cellular Radiotelephone,” IEEE Trans. on Vehicular
Tech., vol.39, no.2, May 1990.
across varying interferer device numbers in the beacon-enabled [6] M.K. Simon and M.S. Alouini, ”Digital Communications over Fading
network. Channels: A Unified Approach to Performance Analysis,” John Wiley &
The main reason of these unique behaviors is the trans- Sons, Inc., New York, 2000.
[7] S. Sampei, ”Applications of Digital wireless Technologies to Global
mission of enhanced beacon requests in the active scanning Wireless Communications” Feher/Prentice Hall, 1997.
process for non-beacon-enabled network. Transmissions of
beacon request and enhanced beacons increase the chances
of backing off and frame collisions among devices. In other
words, the addition of beacon requests is the reason of
throughput degradation and fluctuation in this evaluation.
However, it should be noted that the non-beacon-enabled
network is more energy-efficient, a topic not within the scope
of this work.

46