## 5 Results and Analysis
### Live Measurement Results and Comparative Analysis  
As expected, the results for indoor LoRaWAN traffic were good, which can be seen from Table 1. There was a low uplink packet loss rate of 0.03%, and the sensors were able to resend the data for lost packets. The rate of lost ACKs, where it was possible to calculate, was slightly higher. These ACKs would have also caused the sensor to resend its data. This low packet loss could be attributed to the high received signal strength recorded by the gateways (Table 2) and the low RF noise environment identified by the good SNRs (Table 3). Figure 6 shows relative plots for mean RSSI and standard deviation summarised in Table 2 per gateway. Similarly, Figure 7 shows relative plots for mean SNR and standard deviation summarised in Table 3 per gateway. The only RF path with any noticeable variation was from the shower rooms to the upstairs gateway (Figure 5). In this case, the RF signal path was affected by opened or closed doors, intervening equipment, lockers, or various other conditions. The correlation between RSSI (Figure 5a) and the SNR (Figure 5b) indicated that any noise was a constant low-level background noise. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c} \hline \hline
**Total Packets Received (from Table 4)** & **5828 + 157 (5985)** \\ \hline gateway\_count:2 & 4206 \\ \hline gateway\_count:1 & 1917 \\ \hline Deduplication Errors & 138 \\ \hline Packets Received by both GW & 4344 \\ \hline Packets only received by GW1 & 211 \\ \hline Packets only received by GW2 & 1430 \\ \hline Backhaul network latency GW1, mean \& std & 209 ms, \(\pm\)27 ms \\ \hline Backhaul network latency GW2, mean \& std & 203 ms, \(\pm\)88 ms \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 6: Deduplication And gateway statistics. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Uplink Packets** & **Lost Uplink** & **Lost ACK** & **Full Success** \\ \hline
6088 & 103 & 157 & 5828 \\ \hline Percent & 1.69\% & 2.58\% & 95.7\% \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}  
* * SF9 \& SF10 packets transmitted over a weekend.  
\end{table} 
Table 4: Analysis of packets * sent by sensor to network. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Gateway \& Channel** & **Mean(RSSI)** & **Std(RSSI) \(\pm\)** & **Mean(SNR)** & **Std(SNR) \(\pm\)** & **Packets** \\
**Channel** & **(dBm)** & **dB** & **(dB)** & **dB** & **dB** & **Received** \\ \hline GW1-0 & \(-110.0\) & \(\pm\)4.08 & \(-8.05\) & \(\pm\)5.48 & 1310 \\ \hline GW1-1 & \(-112.7\) & \(\pm\)4.16 & 2.98 & \(\pm\)3.67 & 1914 \\ \hline GW1-2 & \(-118.3\) & \(\pm\)2.99 & 0.39 & \(\pm\)3.26 & 1331 \\ \hline GW2-0 & \(-96.6\) & \(\pm\)4.49 & \(-8.90\) & \(\pm\)5.17 & 1984 \\ \hline GW2-1 & \(-107.9\) & \(\pm\)3.42 & 4.35 & \(\pm\)3.20 & 1893 \\ \hline GW2-2 & \(-110.9\) & \(\pm\)3.62 & 5.16 & \(\pm\)2.00 & 1897 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 5: Outdoor rssi & snr by gateway and channel. Deduplication errors were not considered because both gateways used cabled backhaul network connections, but performing the analysis did identify some deduplication errors with the gateways. These gateways were connected via a private network, making it not possible to monitor them directly. Therefore, the causes of deduplication errors were unknown. Although the outdoor LoRaWAN packet losses (Table 4) were 50 times greater than for the indoor test, these results appeared \"good\" for low-power wireless packets transmitted to and from gateways approximately 2 km distant. Although the indoor testing did not identify any variation due to the channel frequency, the outdoor testing indicated that the channel frequency could affect the ability to receive packets successfully. From Table 6, it was seen that Gateway-1 (GW-1) received 20% fewer packets than Gateway-2 (GW-2), and the Table 5 results indicated that this amount was due to a much lower reception of packets transmitted on channels zero or two (868.1 MHz and 868.5 MHz).