45  WirelessHART TDMA & Channels

Key Concepts

• TDMA (Time Division Multiple Access): The WirelessHART MAC mechanism dividing time into 10 ms slots and assigning each slot exclusively to a specific communication link
• Channel Hopping: Changing the operating frequency after each TDMA slot according to a pseudo-random sequence; provides frequency diversity and interference resilience
• Superframe Length: The number of TDMA slots in one repetition cycle; WirelessHART uses superframes of 64 to 65,535 slots
• Slot Type: Each TDMA slot is classified as Transmit, Receive, Shared, or Idle; the Network Manager assigns slot types to each device link
• Shared Slot: A TDMA slot that multiple devices may access using CSMA, used during the network join phase before a device is assigned dedicated slots
• Timekeeping Accuracy: WirelessHART requires ±1 ms timing accuracy between devices; maintained by periodic synchronisation beacons from the Network Manager
• Effective Data Rate: Despite 250 kbps raw PHY rate, WirelessHART TDMA overhead reduces effective application throughput to ~40 kbps for a single link

45.1 In 60 Seconds

WirelessHART achieves industrial-grade reliability through TDMA (Time Division Multiple Access) and channel hopping. TDMA divides time into 10ms slots assigned by the Network Manager, eliminating collisions. Channel hopping cycles through IEEE 802.15.4 channels (using a pseudo-random sequence), so if one channel has interference, the next transmission uses a different frequency. Together, these mechanisms provide deterministic, collision-free communication even in interference-rich industrial plants.

For Beginners: WirelessHART TDMA

WirelessHART uses TDMA (Time Division Multiple Access) and channel hopping to provide reliable, interference-resistant communication. TDMA gives each device a reserved time slot (like appointments in a schedule), while channel hopping constantly switches frequencies to avoid interference. Together, they create rock-solid industrial wireless communication.

Learning Objectives

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

• Analyze how TDMA (Time Division Multiple Access) scheduling eliminates collisions in WirelessHART networks
• Justify why deterministic communication is critical for industrial control loops and safety systems
• Diagram the per-message channel hopping mechanism and calculate its reliability benefits
• Contrast WirelessHART’s per-message hopping with Zigbee’s network-wide hopping in interference scenarios
• Evaluate channel blacklisting strategies for mitigating persistent interference in the 2.4 GHz band
• Assess time synchronization requirements and their impact on TDMA slot integrity

45.2 Introduction

WirelessHART achieves its industrial-grade reliability through two key mechanisms: TDMA (Time Division Multiple Access) scheduling and channel hopping. Together, these provide collision-free, deterministic communication that can withstand the interference-rich environment of industrial plants.

45.3 Prerequisites

Before diving into this chapter, you should be familiar with:

• WirelessHART Fundamentals: Understanding the protocol architecture and HART background
• Networking Basics: Understanding network topologies and basic protocol concepts

---

45.4 TDMA Scheduling Fundamentals

45.4.1 Why TDMA for Industrial Control?

Industrial automation has fundamentally different requirements than consumer IoT:

Industrial Control Requirements:

1. Deterministic latency: Control loops need predictable timing
   • Example: Close valve within 500 ms of pressure exceeding threshold
   • Variable latency causes instability in control systems
2. High reliability: 99.999%+ uptime required
   • Process safety depends on reliable communication
   • Collisions reduce reliability
3. Guaranteed capacity: Network must handle worst-case load
   • During process upsets, many alarms trigger simultaneously
   • CSMA/CA degrades under heavy load (exponential backoff)

Figure 45.1: TDMA Benefits for Industrial Automation: Determinism, Collision-Free, Guaranteed Bandwidth

45.4.2 Why 10 Milliseconds Per Time Slot (and Not 1 ms or 100 ms)

WirelessHART’s 10 ms time slot duration is one of the most consequential design decisions in the protocol. It was not an arbitrary choice – it balances four competing constraints.

Putting Numbers to It

How much overhead does WirelessHART’s 10 ms slot really waste? Consider a typical industrial sensor reporting 4 bytes of data every second:

The actual transmission time at 250 kbps is only 4.06 ms for a maximum-length frame. With 10 ms slots, we’re “wasting” 5.94 ms per transmission—that’s 59% overhead! But this apparent waste is actually engineering elegance:

\[\text{Efficiency} = \frac{T_{\text{transmit}}}{T_{\text{slot}}} = \frac{4.06\,\text{ms}}{10\,\text{ms}} = 40.6\%\]

The remaining 5.94 ms provides: turnaround time (0.19 ms), ACK transmission (0.35 ms), guard time for clock drift (2-3 ms at ±40 ppm), and a safety margin. Without this overhead budget, a 1% clock drift over 30 seconds would cause slot collisions. The math shows that 10 ms is the sweet spot where radio physics (4.5 ms minimum), timing tolerance (2-3 ms guard), and control loop requirements (<100 ms response) all align perfectly.

The minimum is set by radio physics. An IEEE 802.15.4 frame at 250 kbps with maximum payload (127 bytes) takes 4.06 ms to transmit. Add the mandatory preamble (0.16 ms), synchronization header (0.13 ms), and a CCA (clear channel assessment) check before transmitting (0.13 ms), and the minimum practical transmission time is approximately 4.5 ms. A 5 ms slot would leave only 0.5 ms for guard time, turnaround, and acknowledgment – too tight for devices with inexpensive crystal oscillators that drift by +/-40 ppm (producing +/-0.4 ms of timing error over 10 seconds between sync events).

The guard time budget needs 2-3 ms. After subtracting the 4.5 ms transmission from a 10 ms slot, 5.5 ms remains. This is divided into: Tx-to-Rx turnaround (0.19 ms per IEEE 802.15.4 spec), ACK transmission (0.35 ms), guard time for clock drift (2-3 ms, accommodating +/-40 ppm crystal accuracy with 30-second sync intervals), and a small idle period. This budget is comfortable but not wasteful.

The maximum is set by control loop requirements. Industrial process control typically requires 1-second update rates (for monitoring) and 100-250 ms response times (for safety interlocks). A 10 ms slot means the gateway can reach any device in 3-5 hops within 30-50 ms – well within the 100 ms safety budget. If slots were 100 ms, a 5-hop path would take 500 ms, violating safety timing requirements.

The capacity math works out cleanly. With 10 ms slots and a 1-second superframe: 100 slots x 15 channels = 1,500 slot-channel pairs per second. This supports 150+ devices with redundant paths at <17% utilization. A 1 ms slot would give 15,000 pairs (overkill, and the radio physics prevent it). A 100 ms slot would give only 150 pairs – barely enough for a medium deployment with no room for retransmissions.

The ISA 100.11a standard, designed two years later, also chose 10 ms slots – validating that the WirelessHART engineers found the optimal point.

45.4.3 TDMA Superframe Structure

Alternative View: WirelessHART TDMA Time Slot Structure

This variant shows how WirelessHART schedules transmissions:

WirelessHART divides time into fixed 10ms slots within superframes. Each device gets assigned slots for transmission with channel hopping between slots. This TDMA approach eliminates collisions and provides deterministic latency.

Alternative View: TDMA Superframe Timing

This variant visualizes the TDMA concept through a time-slot schedule - useful for understanding how WirelessHART achieves deterministic latency by pre-assigning transmission windows to each device.

Figure 45.2: WirelessHART TDMA superframe showing parallel transmissions across channels with 10ms time slots

45.4.4 TDMA vs CSMA/CA Comparison

Example: Safety Shutdown

Requirement: High pressure detected → close valve within 1 second (safety requirement)

With TDMA (WirelessHART):

• Slot 1 (10 ms): Sensor → Router
• Slot 2 (10 ms): Router → Gateway
• Slot 3 (10 ms): Gateway → Valve actuator
• Total: 30 ms (deterministic) ✓

With CSMA/CA (Zigbee):

• Sensor transmits: Success (50 ms)
• Router transmits: Collision! Backoff 100 ms, retry → Success (150 ms)
• Gateway transmits: Success (50 ms)
• Total: 250 ms (variable, could be longer) ⚠️

In heavy traffic, CSMA/CA latency could exceed 1 second → Safety failure

CSMA/CA Problems for Industrial:

1. Variable latency:
   • Must listen before transmit
   • Random backoff on collision
   • Unpredictable delay (milliseconds to seconds)
2. Collisions under load:
   • More devices = more collisions
   • Exponential backoff increases latency
   • Network capacity degrades when most needed
3. No guaranteed delivery time:
   • Cannot guarantee “message within 500 ms”
   • Unacceptable for control loops

---

45.5 Time Synchronization

45.5.1 Why Microsecond Accuracy Matters

TDMA requires all devices to agree precisely when each 10 ms timeslot begins and ends. Without synchronization, Device A might think “Slot 1 starts at 0 ms” while Device B thinks “Slot 1 starts at 2 ms”—resulting in overlapping transmissions and collisions.

WirelessHART maintains ±0.5 ms clock accuracy through: 1. Network Time Protocol (NTP) from gateway 2. Periodic time sync packets with timestamps 3. Clock drift compensation based on temperature/crystal

Devices that lose sync for >1 second are removed from active routing to prevent collision damage. This is why WirelessHART uses more power than async protocols like LoRaWAN.

Quick Check: Time Synchronization

---

45.6 Channel Hopping Mechanisms

45.6.1 Per-Message Channel Hopping

WirelessHART hops channels after every message, providing maximum frequency diversity:

Figure 45.3: WirelessHART Per-Message Channel Hopping Using Hash-Based Frequency Selection

Benefits of Per-Message Hopping:

• Maximum frequency diversity: Every message on different channel
• Interference immunity: Even if Wi-Fi occupies channel 11, only messages hashed to channel 11 affected
• Probabilistic reliability: With 15 channels, ~93% of messages avoid any single interfered channel
• No coordination needed: Each device hops independently based on algorithm

45.6.2 Comparison: Zigbee Network-Wide Hopping

Figure 45.4: Zigbee Network-Wide Channel Hopping with Coordinator-Triggered Switch

Zigbee Limitations:

• All devices affected: If Wi-Fi interferes with current channel, entire network suffers
• Slower adaptation: Network hops periodically (minutes), not per message
• Coordination overhead: Coordinator must signal channel switches

Quick Check: Channel Hopping Strategies

45.6.3 Channel Blacklisting

Channel blacklisting addresses coexistence in the 2.4 GHz ISM band:

Interference Scenario: Wi-Fi AP on Channel 11

WirelessHART:

• Channel hopping formula assigns messages across all 15 channels
• ~7% of messages use channel 11 (if not blacklisted)
• 93% of messages unaffected by Wi-Fi interference
• Network Manager can blacklist channel 11 → 100% of messages avoid interference

Zigbee:

• If network currently on channel 11: 100% of messages affected
• Must wait for next network-wide hop (typically minutes)
• During that time: High packet loss, retransmissions, degraded performance

Statistical Advantage:

With 15 channels and 1 interfered channel:

WirelessHART: \[P(\text{avoid interference}) = \frac{14}{15} = 93.3\%\]

For 3-hop path: \[P(\text{success}) = (0.933)^3 = 81.2\%\]

Zigbee (on interfered channel): \[P(\text{avoid interference}) = 0\%\] (until network hops)

Channel Blacklisting Enhancement:

WirelessHART can blacklist persistently bad channels: - Detect channel 11 has high PER (Packet Error Rate) - Add to blacklist - Hop among remaining 14 channels - 100% avoidance of known interference

viewof total_channels = Inputs.range([5, 15], {value: 15, step: 1, label: "Total channels"})
viewof interfered_channels = Inputs.range([0, 10], {value: 3, step: 1, label: "Interfered channels"})
viewof hop_path = Inputs.range([1, 10], {value: 4, step: 1, label: "Hops in path"})

{
  const clean = total_channels - interfered_channels;
  const p_avoid = clean > 0 ? clean / total_channels : 0;
  const p_multihop_no_bl = Math.pow(p_avoid, hop_path) * 100;
  const p_blacklisted = clean > 0 ? 1.0 : 0;
  const p_multihop_bl = Math.pow(p_blacklisted, hop_path) * 100;

  return html`<div style="background: linear-gradient(135deg, #f8f9fa, #e9ecef); padding: 1.2rem; border-radius: 8px; border-left: 4px solid #2C3E50; font-family: sans-serif; margin-top: 0.5rem;">
    <div style="font-weight: 600; color: #2C3E50; margin-bottom: 0.8rem;">Channel Hopping Interference Avoidance</div>
    <div style="display: grid; grid-template-columns: 1fr 1fr; gap: 0.6rem; font-size: 0.9rem;">
      <div><strong>Clean channels:</strong> ${clean} of ${total_channels}</div>
      <div><strong>Per-message avoidance:</strong> ${(p_avoid * 100).toFixed(1)}%</div>
      <div><strong>${hop_path}-hop success (no blacklist):</strong> <span style="color: ${p_multihop_no_bl > 90 ? '#16A085' : p_multihop_no_bl > 70 ? '#E67E22' : '#E74C3C'}; font-weight: bold;">${p_multihop_no_bl.toFixed(1)}%</span></div>
      <div><strong>${hop_path}-hop success (with blacklist):</strong> <span style="color: #16A085; font-weight: bold;">${p_multihop_bl.toFixed(1)}%</span></div>
      <div><strong>Blacklisting improvement:</strong> +${(p_multihop_bl - p_multihop_no_bl).toFixed(1)} percentage points</div>
      <div><strong>Effective capacity:</strong> ${clean > 0 ? ((clean / 15) * 100).toFixed(0) : 0}% of full (vs 15-ch baseline)</div>
    </div>
  </div>`;
}

---

45.7 Knowledge Check

Quiz: TDMA vs CSMA/CA

Matching Quiz: TDMA and Channel Hopping Concepts

Ordering Quiz: WirelessHART TDMA Transmission Sequence

---

Sensor Squad: TDMA and Channel Hopping

Sammy the Sensor is confused: “In my old network, everyone just shouted whenever they wanted to talk. Sometimes two sensors would talk at the same time and nobody could understand anything!”

Max the Microcontroller explains: “That’s called a collision! WirelessHART fixes this with TDMA – Time Division Multiple Access. Think of it like a classroom where the teacher gives each student a specific time to speak. You get exactly 10 milliseconds for your turn, then the next sensor gets their turn. Nobody talks over each other!”

Lila the LED adds the cool part: “And channel hopping is like having 15 different radio stations. Every time you send a message, you use a different station. So if one station has static from a nearby machine, your next message goes on a clean station!”

Bella the Battery chimes in: “What if a channel is always noisy? That’s where blacklisting comes in. The Network Manager says ‘Channel 5 is always bad near that big motor, so nobody use channel 5 anymore.’ Smart, right?”

Key ideas for kids:

• TDMA = Each sensor gets its own time to talk, like raising your hand in class
• Time slot = Your 10-millisecond window to speak
• Channel hopping = Switching radio frequencies each message, like changing radio stations
• Blacklisting = Permanently skipping noisy channels

Interactive: WirelessHART TDMA Superframe Animation

Worked Example: WirelessHART Network Capacity Planning for Chemical Plant

Scenario: A chemical processing plant needs to deploy WirelessHART for 120 process instruments (pressure, temperature, flow transmitters) across 3 process units. Each instrument reports once per second. The plant has 15 IEEE 802.15.4 channels available (US 2.4 GHz band).

Given:

• 120 instruments reporting at 1 Hz
• 10 ms TDMA slot duration
• 100 slots per superframe (1 second)
• 15 channels available
• Average 3-hop path from instrument to gateway

Calculate network utilization:

Step 1: Total slot-channel pairs available - 100 slots/superframe × 15 channels = 1,500 slot-channel pairs per second

Step 2: Slots required per instrument per second - Each message requires 1 slot for transmission - With 3 hops: instrument → router1 (slot 1) → router2 (slot 2) → gateway (slot 3) - Each instrument needs 3 slots per second for 3-hop delivery

Step 3: Total slots consumed - 120 instruments × 3 slots = 360 slots per second

Step 4: Network utilization - Utilization = 360 / 1,500 = 24%

Step 5: Retransmission budget - With 24% utilization, 76% capacity remains - Budget for retransmissions: If PER = 5%, expect 360 × 0.05 = 18 retransmissions per second - With retransmissions: (360 + 18) / 1,500 = 25.2% utilization

Conclusion: The network operates at ~25% capacity with headroom for 75% additional traffic, retransmissions, and future expansion. This is well within recommended WirelessHART design limits of <40% utilization for stable operation.

Design validation: With 10 ms slots and 3 hops, worst-case latency = 3 × 10 ms = 30 ms, meeting typical 100 ms process control requirements with 70 ms safety margin.

Decision Framework: Choosing WirelessHART vs ISA100.11a for Industrial IoT

Criterion	WirelessHART	ISA100.11a	Best For
Channel hopping	Per-message (every 10 ms)	Per-superframe (slower)	WirelessHART: interference-heavy environments (refineries with rotating equipment)
Protocol stack	Proprietary HART on top of 802.15.4	Full IP stack (IPv6 + 6LoWPAN)	ISA100: integration with enterprise IT systems
Installed base	~35 million devices (2023)	~8 million devices	WirelessHART: mature ecosystem with more vendor choices
Frequency agility	15 channels, blacklisting	Configurable hopping sequences	WirelessHART: faster adaptation to interference
Gateway architecture	Dedicated gateways	IP-native, standard routers	ISA100: easier integration with existing IP networks
Security	AES-128 CCM, join keys	AES-128 CCM, IPsec option	Equivalent security; ISA100 adds IPsec for VPN support
Power consumption	Slightly lower (simpler stack)	Slightly higher (IP overhead)	WirelessHART: battery-powered field instruments
Development cost	HART Foundation membership ($3,500/year)	ISA membership ($1,500/year)	ISA100: lower barrier to entry

Decision tree:

• Choose WirelessHART when: Deploying in oil/gas/chemical with severe interference, need HART compatibility with existing 4-20 mA infrastructure, prioritize fastest channel hopping for reliability
• Choose ISA100.11a when: IT/OT convergence is priority, need native IPv6 integration, deploying in less harsh RF environment (manufacturing, pharma), want lower licensing costs

Common Mistake: Forgetting Channel Blacklisting Recalibration

What practitioners do wrong: Deploy WirelessHART with initial channel blacklisting configuration (e.g., blacklist channels 15-20 due to Wi-Fi coexistence), then never revisit the blacklist despite changing RF environment.

Why it fails:

• RF environment changes over time: new Wi-Fi APs installed, microwave ovens in break rooms, interference from new industrial equipment
• A channel blacklisted in 2018 may be clean in 2024, while a previously good channel may now have persistent interference
• Running with stale blacklists wastes available spectrum: if 5 channels are blacklisted but only 2 have actual interference, the network uses only 10 channels instead of 13, reducing capacity by 23%

Correct approach:

1. Quarterly spectrum analysis: Use Network Manager diagnostic tools to measure PER (Packet Error Rate) per channel
2. Dynamic blacklist updates: Remove channels with PER < 5% from blacklist; add channels with PER > 15%
3. Validation: After blacklist changes, monitor network health for 7 days to ensure no degradation

Real-world example: A refinery deployed WirelessHART in 2015 and blacklisted channels 11-16 due to Wi-Fi interference. In 2020, the plant upgraded Wi-Fi to 5 GHz-only, eliminating 2.4 GHz interference. The WirelessHART network continued avoiding channels 11-16 unnecessarily until a 2022 site survey discovered the error. Updating the blacklist increased effective capacity from 9 channels to 15 (67% increase), allowing the plant to add 200 additional sensors without infrastructure upgrades. The unnecessary blacklist had cost the plant an estimated $180,000 in deferred sensor deployments over 5 years.

45.8 Real-World Industrial Deployments

45.8.1 ExxonMobil Baton Rouge Refinery (Louisiana, 2012-Present)

ExxonMobil deployed 2,300 WirelessHART field instruments across its Baton Rouge refinery complex – one of the largest WirelessHART installations globally. The deployment replaced 1,400 wired 4-20 mA instruments and added 900 new measurement points that were previously uneconomical to wire.

Deployment specifications:

Parameter	Value	Significance
Network size	2,300 devices, 45 gateways	51 devices per gateway average
TDMA slots per superframe	100 slots (1 second period)	Each device transmits once per second worst-case
Channels in use	12 of 15 available	3 channels blacklisted (Wi-Fi coexistence)
End-to-end reliability	99.9% measured over 5 years	Exceeds ISA-100 requirement of 99.7%
Maximum hop count	8 hops	Kept below theoretical limit of 32
Battery life (field devices)	5-7 years on D-cell lithium	Exceeds wired instrument maintenance interval
Installation cost savings	73% vs equivalent wired	$4,200 per point (wireless) vs $15,600 per point (wired)

Why WirelessHART over ISA100.11a: ExxonMobil chose WirelessHART specifically for its per-message channel hopping (vs ISA100.11a’s slower hopping) because the refinery’s rotating equipment generates broadband interference that affects different channels at different times. Per-message hopping ensures that even if interference corrupts one transmission, the immediate retry occurs on a different frequency.

45.8.2 Shell Pernis Refinery Vibration Monitoring (Netherlands, 2015)

Shell deployed 420 WirelessHART vibration sensors on rotating equipment (pumps, compressors, turbines) at Europe’s largest refinery. Vibration monitoring requires higher data rates than typical process variables:

• Data rate: 512 vibration samples per reading (1,024 bytes) vs typical 4-byte process variable
• Update rate: Every 15 minutes (vs typical 1-second for process control)
• Superframe configuration: Dedicated 10-slot burst window per vibration sensor
• Channel hopping benefit: Vibration data spans 10 consecutive TDMA slots – if one slot suffers interference, only 10% of the spectrum data is lost (reconstructable via interpolation)

ROI: The system detected early bearing degradation in 23 rotating machines during the first year, preventing 4 unplanned shutdowns valued at EUR 2.1 million each. Total savings: EUR 8.4 million against deployment cost of EUR 1.2 million. Payback period: 53 days.

Common Pitfalls

1. Confusing TDMA Slot Count With Network Capacity

A 100-slot superframe supports 100 link transmissions per cycle, but each device may need multiple slots for upstream and downstream paths. Fix: calculate the required slot count per device (uplink + downlink + retransmission reserve) before determining the superframe length.

2. Not Accounting for Channel Hopping Blacklisting

WirelessHART allows blacklisting channels with persistent interference. Using all 15 channels when 3 are heavily interfered wastes slots on failed transmissions. Fix: measure channel quality and blacklist heavily interfered channels in the Network Manager configuration.

3. Assuming Channel Hopping Eliminates All Interference

Channel hopping reduces correlated interference but cannot eliminate broadband jammers or simultaneous interference on multiple channels. Fix: combine channel hopping with physical separation from strong interferers (Wi-Fi APs, microwave equipment) for maximum reliability.

🏷️ Label the Diagram

💻 Code Challenge

45.9 Summary

WirelessHART achieves industrial-grade reliability through TDMA and channel hopping:

• TDMA Scheduling: Collision-free, deterministic communication with assigned 10ms timeslots providing predictable latency essential for control loops
• Time Synchronization: All devices maintain ±0.5ms accuracy to prevent slot collisions; devices losing sync are removed from active routing
• Per-Message Channel Hopping: Every message uses a different channel (15 total), maximizing frequency diversity and interference immunity
• Channel Blacklisting: Dynamic detection and avoidance of persistently interfered channels improves reliability from 60% to 99%+
• TDMA vs CSMA/CA: TDMA provides guaranteed delivery times critical for safety systems; CSMA/CA’s variable latency is unacceptable for industrial control
• Statistical Advantage: With 15-channel hopping, 93.3% of messages avoid any single interfered channel; blacklisting achieves 100% avoidance

45.10 Concept Relationships

Builds Upon:

• TDMA Fundamentals: Time-division multiple access vs CSMA/CA trade-offs
• Frequency Hopping: Channel hopping for interference immunity

Enables:

• Deterministic Control Loops: Guaranteed <100ms latency for PID controllers
• Network Management: Centralized scheduling optimizes TDMA slot allocation

Compares With:

• Zigbee CSMA/CA: Probabilistic access (unbounded latency) vs WirelessHART TDMA (guaranteed slots)
• Bluetooth Adaptive Frequency Hopping: Per-connection hopping vs WirelessHART’s per-message hopping

45.11 See Also

• ISA 100.11a TDMA: Similar time-synchronized approach with configurable superframes
• Bluetooth AFH: Adaptive frequency hopping comparison
• Time Synchronization Protocols: IEEE 1588 PTP vs WirelessHART beacon sync

45.12 What’s Next

Direction	Chapter	Focus
Next	WirelessHART Network Management	Centralized control, graph routing, and production considerations
Compare	ISA 100.11a Protocol Stack	Alternative industrial wireless standard with IPv6 and configurable hopping
Compare	Zigbee Fundamentals	CSMA/CA approach for consumer applications – contrast with TDMA
Related	Thread Operation	IPv6-based mesh alternative for industrial environments
Revisit	WirelessHART Fundamentals	Protocol architecture and HART background