851  Wi-Fi Review: Channel Selection and Signal Quality Analysis

import {InlineKnowledgeCheck} from "/assets/js/iotclass-inline-kc.js"

851.1 Learning Objectives

By the end of this section, you will be able to:

• Analyze Wi-Fi Site Surveys: Interpret RSSI measurements and identify interference sources
• Calculate Path Loss: Apply log-distance models to predict signal quality at various distances
• Select Optimal Channels: Choose 2.4 GHz or 5 GHz bands based on deployment requirements
• Estimate Battery Life: Calculate energy consumption for battery-powered Wi-Fi sensors
• Make Band Decisions: Justify 2.4 GHz vs 5 GHz selection with quantitative analysis

851.2 Prerequisites

Before working through this analysis, ensure you understand:

• Wi-Fi Fundamentals - Core 802.11 concepts
• Wi-Fi Frequency Bands - 2.4 GHz vs 5 GHz characteristics
• Networking Fundamentals - Basic RF concepts

851.3 Channel Selection and Signal Quality Analysis

Scenario:

You’re deploying a smart building system with 50 Wi-Fi-enabled temperature and humidity sensors across a 5-floor office building. Each sensor needs to report data every 30 seconds. You’ve performed a Wi-Fi site survey and obtained the following results:

Floor 3 Survey Results (where you plan to deploy 10 sensors):

Network SSID	Channel	RSSI (dBm)	Band
OfficeMain	1	-45	2.4 GHz
OfficeGuest	6	-52	2.4 GHz
Neighbor1	6	-68	2.4 GHz
Neighbor2	11	-73	2.4 GHz
OfficeMain-5G	36	-58	5 GHz
OfficeMain-5G	44	-61	5 GHz

Sensor Requirements:

• Operating range: Up to 30 meters from access point
• Minimum acceptable RSSI: -70 dBm for reliable operation
• Data payload: 20 bytes every 30 seconds
• Battery-powered (CR123A, 1500 mAh, 3V)
• Module: ESP8266 (2.4 GHz only) or ESP32 (2.4 GHz + 5 GHz)

Analysis Questions:

1. Which channel(s) in the 2.4 GHz band would provide the best performance for your IoT deployment, and why?
2. Calculate the expected signal quality at 25 meters from the access point on channel 1 (assume TX power = 20 dBm, frequency = 2.412 GHz)
3. Should you use 2.4 GHz or 5 GHz for this deployment? Justify with specific calculations.
4. If you choose ESP32 with 5 GHz on channel 36, estimate the battery life assuming:
   • Active TX (240 mA for 10 ms every 30 seconds)
   • Active RX (100 mA for 5 ms every 30 seconds)
   • Deep sleep (10 uA) for the rest of the time

---

851.4 Optimal 2.4 GHz Channel Selection

851.4.1 Channel Analysis

2.4 GHz channels are 20 MHz wide but only 5 MHz apart, causing significant overlap. Only channels 1, 6, and 11 are non-overlapping.

851.4.2 Interference Analysis

Channel	Interfering Networks	Interference Level	Score
Channel 1	OfficeMain (ch 1, -45 dBm)	Very High	31.6
Channel 6	OfficeGuest (ch 6, -52 dBm), Neighbor1 (ch 6, -68 dBm)	Medium	6.47
Channel 11	Neighbor2 (ch 11, -73 dBm)	Very Low	0.05

Channel overlap impact: Same channel = 100% interference, Adjacent (+/-1) = 83%, +/-2 = 58%, +/-3 = 33%, +/-4 = 17%, +/-5+ = 0%

TipRecommendation: Channel 11

Lowest interference (only weak neighbor network at -73 dBm), provides cleanest spectrum.

Alternative: Channel 6 would also work well (only OfficeGuest and weak Neighbor1), but has more total interference than channel 11.

Avoid: Channel 1 - Strong OfficeMain network (-45 dBm) creates significant interference.

kc_channel_1 = {
  const container = document.createElement('div');
  container.className = 'inline-kc-container';

  if (typeof InlineKnowledgeCheck !== 'undefined') {
    container.appendChild(InlineKnowledgeCheck.create({
      question: "In a 2.4 GHz Wi-Fi deployment, why is channel 11 preferred when the only detected network is Neighbor2 at -73 dBm, compared to channel 1 where OfficeMain is detected at -45 dBm?",
      options: [
        {text: "Channel 11 has higher bandwidth capacity than channel 1", correct: false, feedback: "Incorrect. All 2.4 GHz channels have the same 20 MHz bandwidth. The difference is in interference levels, not channel capacity."},
        {text: "The -73 dBm signal creates minimal interference compared to -45 dBm which is 28 dB stronger", correct: true, feedback: "Correct! RSSI is logarithmic - each 10 dB represents 10x power difference. A -45 dBm signal is approximately 630 times stronger than -73 dBm, creating much more significant interference. Choosing the channel with weaker interfering signals provides better performance."},
        {text: "Channel 11 is further from channels 1 and 6 so it has less overlap", correct: false, feedback: "Partially true but not the main reason. While channel 11 is non-overlapping with 1 and 6, the key factor here is the interference power level (-73 dBm vs -45 dBm), not channel separation."},
        {text: "Channel 11 supports more simultaneous connections than channel 1", correct: false, feedback: "Incorrect. All channels support the same number of connections. The difference is interference from existing networks, which affects performance for all connected devices."}
      ],
      difficulty: "medium",
      topic: "wifi-channel-selection"
    }));
  }
  return container;
}

---

851.5 Signal Quality Calculation at 25 Meters

851.5.1 Path Loss Calculation

Using the Log-Distance Path Loss Model for indoor Wi-Fi environments:

Formula: PL(d) = PL(d0) + 10 x n x log10(d/d0)

Parameters:

• Distance: 25 meters from AP
• Frequency: 2,412 MHz (channel 1)
• TX power: 20 dBm
• Reference loss PL(d0): 40 dB at 1 meter (2.4 GHz)
• Path loss exponent (n): 2.8 (typical office environment)

851.5.2 Calculation Results

Parameter	Value	Notes
Path loss at 25m	79.14 dB	Indoor office environment
TX power	+20 dBm	Typical Wi-Fi AP
Received signal (RSSI)	-59 dBm	20 - 79.14

851.5.3 Signal Quality Assessment

RSSI Range	Quality	Status
-30 to -50 dBm	Excellent
-50 to -60 dBm	Good	Our result
-60 to -70 dBm	Fair
-70 to -80 dBm	Weak	Minimum threshold
Below -80 dBm	Very weak	Unreliable

NoteAssessment Summary

• Signal quality: GOOD (-59 dBm)
• Above minimum requirement (-70 dBm)
• Safety margin: 11 dB above threshold
• Throughput headroom: far exceeds a low-rate sensor workload (actual throughput depends on PHY rate, contention, and retries)

---

851.6 2.4 GHz vs 5 GHz Decision

851.6.1 Comparison

Factor	2.4 GHz (Channel 11)	5 GHz (Channel 36)	Winner
Coverage	Better penetration through walls	Worse (higher frequency = more attenuation)	2.4 GHz
Interference	Often more crowded (Wi-Fi, Bluetooth, microwave)	Often more channel options (region/DFS dependent)	5 GHz
Range	Typically better penetration/coverage indoors	Often shorter in the same environment	2.4 GHz
Data Rate	Sufficient (only 20 bytes/30s = 5.3 bps)	Higher but unnecessary	Tie
Power	Lower (better for battery)	Higher (worse for battery)	2.4 GHz
Observed RSSI	-59 dBm (calculated)	-58 dBm (surveyed)	Tie

851.6.2 5 GHz Range Analysis

Using same log-distance model with n = 3.2 (higher path loss exponent for 5 GHz):

Parameter	2.4 GHz	5 GHz	Difference
Frequency	2,412 MHz	5,180 MHz	2.15x higher
Path loss at 25m	79.14 dB	84.74 dB	+5.6 dB
RSSI at 25m	-59 dBm	-65 dBm	5.6 dB worse

Both signals are acceptable (above -70 dBm threshold), but 2.4 GHz provides better margin.

TipRecommendation: Prefer 2.4 GHz for coverage-driven sensors

Validate with a site survey before final deployment.

Justification:

1. Coverage: Better penetration ensures all 50 sensors across 5 floors remain connected
2. Data rate: Both bands provide far more than the required 5.3 bps
3. Link margin: 2.4 GHz typically provides better margin at the same distance/obstacle layout

Only use 5 GHz if:

• 2.4 GHz is highly congested in your environment and 5 GHz is available/cleaner
• You have higher per-device throughput needs (cameras, frequent uploads)
• You can ensure coverage (placement/backhaul) despite higher path loss

kc_channel_2 = {
  const container = document.createElement('div');
  container.className = 'inline-kc-container';

  if (typeof InlineKnowledgeCheck !== 'undefined') {
    container.appendChild(InlineKnowledgeCheck.create({
      question: "A temperature sensor only transmits 20 bytes every 30 seconds (5.3 bps effective data rate). Why is 2.4 GHz preferred over 5 GHz for this deployment, even though 5 GHz offers higher bandwidth?",
      options: [
        {text: "5 GHz is not supported by most IoT microcontrollers", correct: false, feedback: "Partially true for some devices (ESP8266 is 2.4 GHz only), but ESP32 supports both bands. The question asks about deployment preference given the data rate requirements."},
        {text: "2.4 GHz provides better wall penetration and range, which matters more than bandwidth for low-data-rate sensors", correct: true, feedback: "Correct! When data requirements are minimal (5.3 bps vs available Mbps), range and coverage become the primary selection criteria. 2.4 GHz's better propagation characteristics ensure reliable connectivity across all 5 floors, while 5 GHz's higher bandwidth provides no benefit for such low data rates."},
        {text: "2.4 GHz consumes less power during transmission", correct: false, feedback: "The power difference between bands is relatively small (~10-15%). The main advantage is coverage/range, not power consumption during the brief transmission periods."},
        {text: "5 GHz requires more expensive hardware", correct: false, feedback: "While some 5 GHz hardware may cost slightly more, this isn't the primary decision factor. The deployment requirements (coverage, data rate) should drive the band selection."}
      ],
      difficulty: "easy",
      topic: "wifi-band-selection"
    }));
  }
  return container;
}

---

851.7 Battery Life Calculation (ESP32, 5 GHz, Channel 36)

851.7.1 Given Parameters

• Battery: CR123A, 1500 mAh, 3V
• Transmission: 240 mA for 10 ms every 30 seconds
• Reception: 100 mA for 5 ms every 30 seconds
• Deep sleep: 10 uA for remaining time
• Cycles per day: 2,880 (every 30 seconds)

851.7.2 Energy Consumption Breakdown

Activity	Current	Duration per cycle	Energy per day	Percentage
TX	240 mA	10 ms	1.92 mAh	75.0%
RX	100 mA	5 ms	0.40 mAh	15.6%
Deep sleep	10 uA	29.985 s	0.24 mAh	9.4%
Total		30 s	2.56 mAh/day	100%

851.7.3 Battery Life Calculation

Result: 1.6 years battery life (1500 mAh / 2.56 mAh/day = 586 days)

851.7.4 Optimization Opportunities

Optimization	Impact	New Battery Life
Increase interval to 5 min	10x fewer transmissions	16 years
Use 2.4 GHz instead of 5 GHz	15% power reduction	1.85 years
Combine both optimizations	10x + 15% improvement	18.4 years*

*Practical limit: CR123A self-discharge (~2%/year) caps real-world battery life at ~10 years.

851.7.5 Critical Insight - Deep Sleep vs Modem Sleep

Sleep Mode	Current	Battery Life	Comparison
Deep sleep (recommended)	10 uA	1.6 years	Baseline
Modem sleep (NOT recommended)	20 mA	3.1 days	189x WORSE

WarningCritical Power Design Decision

Deep sleep provides 189x improvement in battery life. Always use deep sleep for battery-powered Wi-Fi IoT devices when possible.

kc_channel_3 = {
  const container = document.createElement('div');
  container.className = 'inline-kc-container';

  if (typeof InlineKnowledgeCheck !== 'undefined') {
    container.appendChild(InlineKnowledgeCheck.create({
      question: "An ESP32 sensor using modem sleep (20 mA) between transmissions achieves only 3.1 days battery life. Switching to deep sleep (10 uA) extends battery life to 1.6 years. What explains this dramatic 189x improvement?",
      options: [
        {text: "Deep sleep completely powers off the Wi-Fi radio, eliminating all RF power consumption", correct: false, feedback: "Deep sleep does power off the radio, but so does modem sleep. The difference is in what remains powered - deep sleep also powers off the CPU and most peripherals."},
        {text: "Deep sleep draws 2000x less current (10 uA vs 20 mA), and idle time dominates the power budget", correct: true, feedback: "Correct! The sensor is idle for 29.985 seconds out of every 30-second cycle (99.95% idle). At 20 mA modem sleep, idle power is 20 mA x 24h = 480 mAh/day. At 10 uA deep sleep, idle power drops to 0.24 mAh/day. Since idle time dominates, the 2000x current reduction translates to massive battery life improvement."},
        {text: "Deep sleep uses a more efficient voltage regulator that wastes less power", correct: false, feedback: "While voltage regulation efficiency matters, the primary difference is the current draw (10 uA vs 20 mA), not regulator efficiency. The CPU and peripherals being powered off in deep sleep is the main factor."},
        {text: "Deep sleep disables beacon listening, saving the energy of periodic wake-ups", correct: false, feedback: "Both modem sleep and deep sleep can be configured to not listen for beacons. The 2000x current difference comes from powering off the CPU and peripherals in deep sleep mode."}
      ],
      difficulty: "medium",
      topic: "wifi-power-optimization"
    }));
  }
  return container;
}

---

851.8 Summary

This analysis demonstrated a systematic approach to Wi-Fi deployment decisions:

• Channel Selection: Analyze site survey data to choose channels with lowest interference (channel 11 in this case)
• Path Loss Modeling: Apply log-distance models to predict signal quality at deployment distances
• Band Selection: Choose 2.4 GHz for coverage-critical, low-data-rate sensor deployments
• Power Budgeting: Calculate expected battery life and identify optimization opportunities
• Sleep Mode Selection: Always use deep sleep (10 uA) instead of modem sleep (20 mA) for battery-powered devices

851.9 What’s Next

Continue to Wi-Fi Review: Power Optimization to explore detailed power optimization strategies for battery-powered Wi-Fi IoT devices, including connection reuse and transmission interval optimization.