## 3 Hybrid Network Implementation Using LoRaWAN and LoRaMESH
### Tests in the Real Scenario  
For the real scenario, the LoRaWAN and LoRaMESH protocols will be submitted to the same analysis only in different positions in relation to the gateway in the case of LoRaWAN and at different distances in both cases. For the LoRaMESH network the nodes were distributed by distance and can be seen in more detail in the Table 4.  
To better present the distribution of endodes within the chosen scenario in the city of Teresina, Piaui, Brazil, whose geographic coodenadas are \(-5.063688\) longitude and \(-42.803953\) latitude representing the neighborhood of consumers of the EEC service, as shown in the Figure 24.  
Figure 23: DAP implementation proposal for AMI hybridization.  
Figure 22: Hybrid implementation.  
The distribution is not in alphabetical order but in order of distance from the point in question to the next nearest point. This distribution was made for two reasons (1) The distribution was made within the LoRaWAN scenario as well as following the distance limitations of the LoRaMESH technology studied and implemented in this work in the urban scenario, which is approximately 600 m of distance between the nodes. During the tests, the nodes made the jumps according to the distribution assigned in order to seek analysis in the real scenario.  
The LoRaWAN scenario is being presented in more detail in the Figure 25. Where the points were distributed by distances, being distributed in all the maximum ends that the end-node was able to reach from the gateway within the urban scenario. In addition, the nodes were organized in three strategic but very specific points, being (A) Left: avenue with several houses and commercial points, (B) Front: point well obstructed and full of houses and buildings, and (C) Left: region with fewer obstacles such as houses, some commercial points, bridges and land.  
To better present the points, the Table 5 presents its distribution and specific characteristics. As previously mentioned, each position refers to a specific urban setting where different types of barriers are considered such as buildings, tourist points, bridges and commercial points. In this sense the SMs that positioned themselves to the left of the gateway achieved a greater reach however only with the larger SFs as well. For the other sides, the barriers are present with greater intensity directly affording the maximum range between the nodes and the gateway, reaching only 2 km.  
Besides the maximum distances reached by each topology, it is possible to observe that the urban scenario has many interferences and barriers that affect the dictatorship and accessibility of connectivity between the nodes, that is, in some cases the MESH is able to make the communication because of the jumps and in other cases the LoRaWAN achieves a greater distance because of the capacity of the technology to have a greater reach and not be interfered because of these barriers. That is, in the next chapter all this analysis will be raised and discussed in order to analyze how RSSI and SNR are affected for the different  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c} \hline \hline
**Point** & **Distance to the Next Point or Coordinator** & **SF Analyzed** & **Hopes** \\ \hline A & 200 m & All & 2 \\ B & 300 m & All & 1 \\ C & 500 m & All & 0 \\ D & 600 m & 10, 11 e 12 & 3 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table}
Table 4: LoRaMESH Real Scenario Point Specifications.  
Figure 24: Endode positions in the real scenario in LoRaMESH implementation.  
scenarios in order to make a survey of the two technologies and reach a hybrid model proposed by this work.