1. Smart Grid ad hoc – May 2011 1 – SGIP NIST PAP2 2 - EPRI FAN Name
doc.: IEEE /0720r0
May 2011
Smart Grid ad hoc – May 2011
Name
Company
Address
Phone
Bruce Kraemer
Marvell
5488 Marvell Lane,
Santa Clara, CA, 95054
Date: 09 May 2011
Abstract:
1 – SGIP NIST PAP2
2 - EPRI FAN
Bruce Kraemer, Marvell
Bruce Kraemer (Marvell)

2. May 2011
SGIP
Bruce Kraemer, Marvell

3. NIST PAP#2 History May 2011 Abstract:
doc.: IEEE /0720r0
May 2011
NIST PAP#2
History
Abstract:
This work area investigates the strengths, weaknesses, capabilities, and constraints of existing and emerging standards-based physical media for wireless communications. The approach is to work with the appropriate standard development organizations (SDOs) to determine the characteristics of each technology for Smart Grid application areas and types. Results are used to assess the appropriateness of wireless communications technologies for meeting Smart Grid applications.
Bruce Kraemer, Marvell
Bruce Kraemer (Marvell)

4. PAP2 Links PAP02: Wireless Communications for the Smart Grid (6.1.5)
May 2011
PAP2 Links
PAP02: Wireless Communications for the Smart Grid (6.1.5)
Contents of this topicUseful Hot LinksAbstract:
Status of PAP02: Wireless Communications for the Smart Grid (6.1.5)
Task Details:
Description:
Objectives:
Why:
Where:
Who:
2011 Upcoming Meetings
May 10 - Teleconference 2:30pm ET
May 24, June 7, June 21, July 5, July 19, Aug 2, Aug 16, Aug 30 - Teleconference 2:00pm ET
July 12-14, SGIP Summer Meeting, Montreal Canada
Bruce Kraemer, Marvell

5. Subscription to NIST PAP#2
May 2011
Subscription to NIST PAP#2
To see the complete NIST Priority Action Plan list go here:
To subscribe to PAP#2 mailing list go here:
Bruce Kraemer, Marvell

6. OpenSG SharePoint Documents
May 2011
OpenSG
SharePoint Documents
Bruce Kraemer, Marvell

7. NIST Timeline (Anticipated)
May 2011
doc.: IEEE /0720r0
May 2011
NIST Timeline (Anticipated)
August , 2009
Project initiation
Draft 0.5
July 28, 2010
Call for Input to Section 6
August 4, 2010
End of draft 0.5 review period
September 15, 2010
SGIP face-to-face, St Louis
Tentative PAP 2 meeting
September 16, 2010
September 30, 2010
Release of draft 0.6
October 29, 2010
End of draft 0.6 review period
November 4, 2010
OpenSG + PAP2 meeting, Fort Lauderdale
December 3, 2010
Extended edit period
January 15, 2011
Release of Version 1
Continuation of project to extend findings
? June/July 2011 ?
Release of Version 2
Bruce Kraemer, Marvell
Bruce Kraemer (Marvell)

8. May 2011
PAP#2 Version 1
Guideline for Assessing Wireless Standards for Smart Grid Applications
Version 1.0 released Jan 13, 2011
Bruce Kraemer, Marvell

9. May 2011
Priority Action Plan for Wireless communications (PAP#2) Activity Summary
Calls every two weeks – details on NIST Twiki
Version 1 paper approved by SGIP board
Procedures approved
Current primary task is to qualify a propagation model that can be used for metering applications
This task will extend to at least thru May 10th
Next proposed task will be to re-work Section 4 - on the Matrix material
Bruce Kraemer, Marvell

10. PAP#2 Procedures approved
May 2011
PAP#2 Procedures approved
14 voters, 12 yes, 0 no, 0 abs, 2 dnv
Bruce Kraemer, Marvell

11. Next PAP 2 meetings Next face-to-face meeting
May 2011
Next PAP 2 meetings
Next face-to-face meeting
SGIP meeting July 12-14, Montreal Canada
Logistics available here:
PAP 2 conference call schedule
Bruce Kraemer, Marvell

12. 2011 NIST PAP2 Meeting History
May 2011
2011 NIST PAP2 Meeting History
Date & Time
Agenda & Slides Presented
Approved Meeting Minutes
4/26/11 2:00PM ET
Download
Download (Unapproved)
4/12/11 2:30PM ET
3/29/11 6:00PM ET
Download, Rural Area Propagation Analysis, Spreadsheet
3/10/11 8:00AM PT
2/25/11 3:00PM ET
Download, PAP02 Proposed Operating Procedures
2/11/11 1:00PM ET
Bruce Kraemer, Marvell

13. NIST PAP#2 Current Work May 2011 May 2011 doc.: IEEE 802.11-11/0720r0
Bruce Kraemer, Marvell
Bruce Kraemer (Marvell)

14. Primary PAP2 Work Items for past several weeks
May 2011
Primary PAP2 Work Items for past several weeks
Terrain & Clutter
Propagation loss models
Characterization of deployment categories
Rural (<1/person or household/sq mi ……
Very Dense >10,000 people or households/sq mi
Bruce Kraemer, Marvell

15. NIST PAP#2 Agenda for May 10, 2011
Review & Approve Today’s Agenda
Approve Prior Meeting Minutes
Operating Procedures Ballot Results
Current Tasks
Framework Proposal to Move Forward (Cunningham)
Updates to Section 4 Matrix (Kraemer)
Meeting announcements
New business
Bruce Kraemer, Marvell

16. Update on Propagation Models
May 10, 2011
Prepared by Doug Gray Consultant to WiMAX Forum

17. Outline Update on Erceg-SUI model 802.11ah work
Closed form expression for atmospheric absorption

18. Modified Erceg–SUI Model
Goal: Extend model to cover broader frequency range
Original: 1800 to 2700 MHz based on measurements at 1900/2000 MHz
Objective is to cover 1000 MHz to 4000 MHz
Approach: Devise or modify a term to achieve a better fit to diffraction/foliage frequency dependence
Need up to 5 dB per octave for hilly terrain and foliage at low BS antenna heights
Current formulation provides 1.8 dB per octave (2000 MHz as basis)

19. Proposed Modification to Erceg–SUI Model
Original formulation:
L = LOG(d0) + 20LOG(f)+10(a-bhb+c/hb)LOG(d/ d0) + 6 LOG(f/2000) - XLOG(hr /2); f in MHz, d0 in m, hb is BS antenna height, hr is SS antenna height For Type A: a = 4.6, b = , c = 12.6 , X = For Type B: a = 4.0, b = , c = 17.1 , X = For Type C: a = 3.6, b = , c = 20 , X = 20
Proposed modification:
L = LOG(d0) + 20LOG(f)+10(a-bhb+c/hb)LOG(d/ d0) + 6 (1+ ak/hb)LOG(f/2000) - XLOG(hr/2); k = 4
Freq Dependency in dB per Octave hb
Type A
Type B
Type C 80
2.22
2.17
2.13 50
2.47
2.38
2.33 20
3.47
3.25
3.11 10
5.13
4.70
4.41
Type A Terrain: Hilly & moderate to heavy tree density
Type B Terrain: Hilly & light tree density or Flat & moderate to heavy tree density
Type C Terrain: Flat & light tree density

20. Excess Loss Frequency Dependence
Original Erceg-SUI
BS at 10 m, SS at 2 m
Excess loss for 2.4 km path length
Foliage depth: meters
Obstruction height: 2 meters
Diffraction Model: ~3 dB/octave
Foliage Model: to 3.5 dB/octave
Modified Erceg-SUI k=4

21. Atmospheric Absorption
Adry air = [ /(f ) +4.81/((f-57)2 +1.5)] f 2/1000 dB/km
Awater = [ ρ + 3.6/((f-22.2) ) /((f-183.3)2 +9.0) /((f-325.4) )] f 2 ρ dB/km
Where f is in GHz and ρ = water vapor density in g/m3
Plotted for ρ = 31.8 g/m3 (100% humidity at 30o C
Source: ITU-R Rec ( )

22. Models vs. Smart Grid Requirements

23. Going Forward
Modified Erceg-SUI Model is a good path loss model for suburban and most rural environments of interest covering 1000 to 4000 MHz with low to high BS antenna heights
Model can also be applied to urban environments with BS antenna height at or above average rooftop heights
Confirmed by comparing to Hata and COST231 models
802.11ah work may provide a good model for <1000 MHz
Need solution for lower BS antenna heights (7-10 m) in rural with varied terrain and foliage characteristics
May still have to treat “extreme” situations on a case by case basis
Use PtP models with link-specific GIS data – analyze each end-point – plus losses for below grade, enclosed meters, etc
Use free space loss and add excess loss for “average” foliage, terrain, or bldg clutter for general purpose wide area coverage
Updated spread-sheet of propagation models
No major changes: some corrections & added place-holder for 11ah work

24. Extended Work Plan Proposal
May 2011
Extended Work Plan Proposal
Bruce Kraemer, Marvell

25. Section 4 - Deliverables
May 2011
doc.: IEEE /0720r0
May 2011
Section 4 - Deliverables
Paper & Matrix
Identify and fully define all necessary terminology (mesh, etc.)
Come up with sane metric definitions for Section 4
Come up with guidelines for filling out the wireless technologies matrix to make sure entries are comparable across technologies
This includes a selection of high priority, fully described “operating points” representing deployment scenarios
Come up with dates for submissions for column entries for the matrix and appoint coordinators for each technology represented in the matrix
Submit results to the PAP2 reflector and announce a comment period
Directly solicit SDO participation and schedule SDO calls to discuss submissions and comments on all of the above
Discuss & adjust the deliverables content using OpenSG as the venue and a proxy for the utility industry
Bruce Kraemer, Marvell
Bruce Kraemer (Marvell)

26. References Previous major submission package to NIST Doc 1396
May 2011
References
Previous major submission package to NIST
Doc 1396
And therein:
Bruce Kraemer, Marvell

27. Previous submissions to NIST PAP#2
May 2011
Previous submissions to NIST PAP#2
Bruce Kraemer, Marvell

28. Revision of Section 4 in PAP2
May 2011
Revision of Section 4 in PAP2
During the May 10th call I would like to begin discussion on revisions to Section 4 – Wireless Technology of the NIST_PAP2_Guidelines_for_Assessing_Wireless_Standards_for_Smart_Grid_Applications_1.0.pdf . Introduction: Prior to the release of Guideline version 1, the IEEE 802 Smart Grid ad hoc generated a set of change recommendations for report Section 4 – Wireless Technology and an associated data collection matrix structure. The intent was to improve the technical accuracy of the Section 4 text and thereby to make it more useful to the Smart Grid community when considering or comparing wireless technology deployment options. The complete set of suggestions can be found at: and embedded in the document was a revised matrix under the name “V6-r1”. The proposed changes were not integrated into Guideline version 1 but it was agreed that they should be further considered as part of the process to produce Guideline version 2. I submit this material with the understanding it serves as a starting point for Section 4 revisions that will be more fully reviewed, rewritten and approved by the PAP2 membership before inclusion in Guideline version 2. It should also be noted that some data collected from SDOs will need to be re-collected when using the revised descriptions and definitions in Section 4.
Bruce Kraemer, Marvell

29. Framework Questions & Comments
May 2011
Framework Questions & Comments
In order to analyze an operational scenario we would need to have additional information on the number of nodes and their physical relationship. For example, in the ESI meter example below, how many nodes are there, where are they and what is the characteristic terrain class within which they are located?
Bruce Kraemer, Marvell

30. Framework Questions & Comments - 2
May 2011
Framework Questions & Comments - 2
Can it be assumed that all analysis would be based upon single technology deployment. Was there an expectation that a mixed technology deployment be analyzed?
Bruce Kraemer, Marvell

31. Framework Questions & Comments - 3
May 2011
Framework Questions & Comments - 3
The analysis of the suitability of a deployment requires a calculation of a link budget. Link budget calculations require using radio performance numbers that are not defined by technology standards documents but are vendor specific. Hence, there may be some differences between individual suppliers’ radio performance numbers. We propose that each technology use a single representative set of radio performance numbers. The chosen set of parameters needs to be specified and approved by PAP2. Additionally, the parameter values would be proposed by each SDO and approved by PAP2. E.g. Receive Antenna pattern and gain profile Transmit Antenna pattern and gain profile Receiver sensitivity Transmit power
Bruce Kraemer, Marvell

32. Framework Questions & Comments - 4
May 2011
Framework Questions & Comments - 4
The analysis of deployment performance is presumed to be based upon a point to point relationship between a transmitter receiver pair. No analysis of repeaters or mesh links would be performed.
Bruce Kraemer, Marvell

33. Framework Questions & Comments – 5a
May 2011
Framework Questions & Comments – 5a
The analysis of deployment performance could be based upon only the relationship between a transmitter receiver pair with messages being transferred from one radio MAC to another. Alternatively there could be a more comprehensive definition of end to end.
PHY
PHY
MAC
MAC
Bruce Kraemer, Marvell

34. Framework Questions & Comments – 5b
May 2011
Framework Questions & Comments – 5b
The analysis of deployment performance could be based upon only the relationship between a transmitter receiver pair with messages being transferred from one radio MAC to another. Alternatively there could be a more comprehensive definition of end to end. How complete are the model end points?
PHY
PHY
MAC
MAC
Bruce Kraemer, Marvell

35. Framework Questions & Comments – 5c
May 2011
Framework Questions & Comments – 5c
Which of the following should the performance analysis take into account?
MAC queues
Buffer overflows
Packet loss/retry
UDP/http- ACK/retry
Reliable vs best effort
Packet size/fragmentation
latency
PHY
PHY
MAC
MAC
Bruce Kraemer, Marvell

36. Minimum Input - 6 The initial “Framework Basics” document states:
May 2011
Minimum Input - 6
The initial “Framework Basics” document states:
Minimum output: quantity of wireless std/tech/spectrum network gear required by endpoint density category, incremental gear type/count for RF propagation factors & engineering work-arounds for subscribers, and no endpoint coverage conditions
There is no data traffic volume specified. It is presumed that some portion of the OpenSG requirements would be selected to quantify the representative data traffic to be used for analysis. Please identify the traffic flow.
Bruce Kraemer, Marvell

37. Minimum Output - 7 The initial “Framework Basics” document states:
May 2011
Minimum Output - 7
The initial “Framework Basics” document states:
Minimum output: quantity of wireless std/tech/spectrum network gear required by endpoint density category, incremental gear type/count for RF propagation factors & engineering work-arounds for subscribers, and no endpoint coverage conditions
E.g How many nodes covered
Packet reliability for reachable nodes
Data throughput for reachable nodes
Bruce Kraemer, Marvell

38. May 2011
Relevance - 8
How does the “Framework Basics” document relate to Guideline version 1?
Where and How do the deliverables called for fit into the context of Wireless Guidelines version 2?
Bruce Kraemer, Marvell

39. Propagation Model Updates
May 2011
Propagation Model Updates
As discussed in the Smart Grid Tuesday afternoon session of the interim meeting in Palm Springs, this is a link to the description of the COST231  Walfisch Ikegami propagation model which is applicable to sub-GHz frequencies, is friendly to outdoor Metering applications, suitable in preference to urban and suburban environments but I believe extensible to the rural environment.
Bruce Kraemer, Marvell

40. Propagation Model Updates
May 2011
Propagation Model Updates
Ron Porat mentioned M.2135
Bruce Kraemer, Marvell

41. EPRI Update Tim Godfrey 11-11-0802-00-0000
May 2011
EPRI Update Tim Godfrey
Bruce Kraemer, Marvell