# Reliable Fault Tolerant-Based Multipath Routing Model for Industrial Wireless Control Systems
## 3 Methodology and System Model
### Simulation Setup
definition criterion of the main route, which uses the degree (distance in hops) from the gateway. The metrics of performance evaluation are packet delivery ratio, network lifetime, latency, reliability, and graphs' average characteristics. ## 5 Conclusions

This article investigated industrial wireless mesh networks planning for featuring high reliability and low latency. In complying with WirelessHART network reliability requirements, we developed a multipath routing (MPR) model that builds three main pathways. Each path is composed of multiple nodes with a different number of hops. The MPR algorithm sets the priority of data transmission over the shortest path; however, the alternative paths are always there for tolerating any transmission errors. The MPR method was simulated with three different existing algorithms, where the simulations were conducted on a WirelessHART simulator considering IWSN applications. The results reveal significant reductions of the average network latency (ANL) in all algorithms as well as significant improvements of the expected network lifetime (ENL) and packet delivery ratio (PDR). Furthermore, the evaluation of MPR fault tolerance characteristics is done by introducing link failures to different links in the MPR model for random periods of time. The link failures are introduced to the network in the primary and alternative pathways. The method has demonstrated robustness, which showed a consistent performance that outperforms the original algorithms. Conceptualization, H.A. ; methodology, H.A., F.A.H. ; software, H.A. ; validation, H.A., F.A.H., A.A., and I.I. ; formal analysis, H.A., A.A., and I.I. ; investigation, H.A., F.A.H. ; resources, H.A., P.A.M.D. ; data curation, H.A. ; writing--original draft preparation, H.A. ; writing--review and editing, F.A.H., A.A.A., and P.A.M.D. ; visualization, A.A., I.I; supervision, F.A.H. ; project administration, F.A.H. ; funding acquisition, A.A.A. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript. This research was funded by Universiti Teknologi PETRONAS, Yayasan UTP Fundamental Research Grant Scheme (YUTP) cost centers 015 LC0-045 and 015 LC0-140. Not applicable. The authors would like to thank the Department of Electrical and Electronics Engineering, Universiti Teknologi PETRONAS for their support. The authors declare no conflict of interest. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Method** & **Routes** & **Objectives** & **Performance Metrics** & **PDR\%** \\ \hline [PERSON] [25] & \begin{tabular}{c} Uplink, downlink, \\ broadcast \\ \end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}{c} Lifetime, resource \\ usage \\ \end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}{c} Latency; reliable nodes percentage; successful route \\ construction ratio. \\ \end{tabular} & 95.5 \\ \hline [PERSON] [26] & \begin{tabular}{c} Broadcast \\ transmission errors \\ \end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}{c} Lifetime, \\ battery-powered nodes’ count; percentage of routing \\ nodes; percentage of reliable node percentage. \\ \end{tabular} & 96.3 \\ \hline QLRR [4] & \begin{tabular}{c} Uplink \\ \end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}{c} Reliability, network \\ performance \\ \end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}{c} Average network latency (ANL); expected network \\ lifetime (ENL); percentage of routing nodes. \\ \end{tabular} & 95.4 \\ \hline The Proposed & \begin{tabular}{c} Multipath \\ \end{tabular} & \
\begin{tabular}{c} Reliability, network \\ latency, network \\ lifetime \\ \end{tabular} &
\begin{tabular}{c} Packed delivery rate; energy consumption-based \\ network lifetime; network performance based on \\ average network latency. \\ \end{tabular} & 99.5 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 4: Performance comparison of MPR with literature. ## References

* _[PERSON] et al. (2017)_ [PERSON]; [PERSON]; [PERSON]; [PERSON] Empirical study and enhancements of industrial wireless sensor-actuator network protocols. _IEEE Internet Things J._**2017**, \(4\), 696-704. [CrossRef]
* _[PERSON] et al.