## 4 Performance evaluation
### Data Analysis
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c c c} \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**EUI-64** (2 bytes)} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**SUN-FSK**} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**SUN-OQPSK**} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**SUN-OFDM**} \\ \cline{2-10}  & **RSSI** & **CCA** & **PDR** & **RSSI** & **CCA** & **PDR** & **RSSI** & **CCA** & **PDR** \\  & **(dBm)** & **(dBm)** & **(\%)** & **(dBm)** & **(dBm)** & **(\%)** & **(dBm)** & **(dBm)** & **(\%)** \\ \hline
56–53 & \(-\)78.5 & \(-\)118.5 & 71.7 & \(-\)85.0 & \(-\)114.6 & 75.7 & \(-\)88.4 & \(-\)104.0 & 68.8 \\ \hline
55–AD & \(-\)76.8 & \(-\)120.0 & 79.8 & \(-\)89.6 & \(-\)117.4 & 78.5 & \(-\)84.7 & \(-\)109.2 & 81.2 \\ \hline
55–E4 & \(-\)75.3 & \(-\)117.6 & 66.8 & \(-\)84.9 & \(-\)113.2 & 70.3 & \(-\)86.1 & \(-\)102.8 & 66.8 \\ \hline
55–99 & \(-\)91.9 & \(-\)121.6 & 77.6 & \(-\)99.0 & \(-\)119.7 & 77.0 & \(-\)97.7 & \(-\)111.3 & 55.2 \\ \hline
55–DD & \(-\)86.9 & \(-\)122.2 & 88.9 & \(-\)96.1 & \(-\)119.5 & 88.1 & \(-\)94.5 & \(-\)111.1 & 78.4 \\ \hline
55–65 & \(-\)79.8 & \(-\)122.6 & 81.5 & \(-\)85.9 & \(-\)119.8 & 88.1 & \(-\)90.1 & \(-\)112.4 & 78.0 \\ \hline
56–0B & \(-\)86.2 & \(-\)122.5 & 74.4 & \(-\)94.4 & \(-\)120.4 & 74.7 & \(-\)93.4 & \(-\)112.4 & 54.6 \\ \hline
56–32 & \(-\)92.0 & \(-\)123.2 & 93.9 & \(-\)101.0 & \(-\)122.4 & 89.4 & \(-\)95.5 & \(-\)114.0 & 79.0 \\ \hline
55–58 & \(-\)93.4 & \(-\)122.8 & 88.3 & \(-\)96.8 & \(-\)122.0 & 89.0 & \(-\)94.9 & \(-\)113.1 & 74.4 \\ \hline
55–63 & \(-\)99.6 & \(-\)122.9 & 86.7 & \(-\)106.2 & \(-\)119.3 & 74.7 & \(-\)99.4 & \(-\)112.0 & 55.1 \\ \hline
63–0A & \(-\)97.9 & \(-\)122.7 & 84.8 & \(-\)104.1 & \(-\)121.5 & 82.2 & \(-\)102.8 & \(-\)112.7 & 30.6 \\ \hline
**Mean** & \(-\)87.1 & \(-\)121.5 & 81.3 & \(-\)94.8 & \(-\)119.1 & 80.7 & \(-\)93.4 & \(-\)110.5 & 65.7 \\ \hline
**Std. Dev.** & 8.2 & 1.8 & 7.8 & 7.2 & 2.8 & 6.6 & 5.3 & 3.5 & 14.7 \\ \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 4: Per node RSSI, CCA, and PDR (physical layer) values separated by modulation type (i.e., SUN-FSK, SUN-OQPSK, and SUN-OFDM). \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c c c} \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**EUI-64** (2 bytes)} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**SUN-FSK**} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**SUN-OQPSK**} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**SUN-OFDM**} \\ \cline{2-10}  & \(\text{P}_{1}\) & \(\text{P}_{2}\) & \(\text{P}_{3}\) & \(\text{P}_{1}\) & \(\text{P}_{2}\) & \(\text{P}_{3}\) & \(\text{P}_{1}\) & \(\text{P}_{2}\) & \(\text{P}_{3}\) \\ \hline
56–53 & 68.2 & 77.1 & 69.8 & 70.6 & 79.8 & 76.6 & 70.0 & 71.9 & 64.7 \\ \hline
55–AD & 83.4 & 81.2 & 74.9 & 81.6 & 80.2 & 73.8 &  
day, and the grey shadowed area represents the days for which we did not have data. In general, the daily averages were within 10 dB, but the minimum values had drops that were over 30 dB. Since the gateway and the nodes were both fixed, such large drops in the minimal RSSI values could only be explained by the effect of moving objects within the factory. Figure 9 shows the RSSI histogram grouped by clusters (i.e, close, medium, and far on each row). In general, the RSSI followed a normal distribution with per-node and per-modulation mean and standard deviation values depicted in Table 5.  
Figure 10 shows the per-day hourly average PDR values for each modulation and node. The shadowed region for each modulation represents the maximum and minimum values observed for each given day, and the grey shadowed area represents the days for which we did not have data. In general, we observe that the SUN-FSK and SUN-OQPSK modulations provided better PDR than SUN-OFDM. As mentioned above, this was owed to the fact that the link budget was better for these modulations (i.e., both higher transmit power and lower sensitivity). However, we also observed that for all modulations and nodes, there were sporadic drops in the average, maximum, and minimum PDR values, leading to moments where nodes could experience complete loss of connectivity. the days for which we did not have data.