See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/381959598

LoRa interference issues and solution approaches in dense IoT networks: a

review

Article in Telecommunication Systems · July 2024

DOI: 10.1007/s11235-024-01192-9

CITATION READS

1 159

4 authors, including:

B Shilpa Reddy Rajesh Jha

14 PUBLICATIONS 64 CITATIONS
Indian Institute of Technology Delhi
38 PUBLICATIONS 154 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
SEE PROFILE

Syed Shakeel IFHE Hashmi

IcfaiTech IFHE University, Hyderabad
14 PUBLICATIONS 24 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by B Shilpa Reddy on 23 September 2024.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Telecommunication Systems
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11235-024-01192-9

REVIEW

LoRa interference issues and solution approaches in dense IoT

networks: a review
B. Shilpa1 · Hari Prabhat Gupta2 · Rajesh Kumar Jha3 · Syed Shakeel Hashmi3

Accepted: 21 June 2024

© The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2024

Abstract
Low Power Wide Area Networks (LPWAN) are prominent option of wireless communication technology for dense Internet of
Things (IoT) applications. With a growing population of resource-constrained IoT devices, meeting various communication
requirements in dynamic and dense wireless networks has become a significant problem. Long Range (LoRa) was designed for
LPWAN, which features long-distance communication, low-power consumption, and simultaneous transmission of multiple
end devices. However, LoRa deployment in dense IoT networks facing several challenges like interference, scalability, security,
and reliability. In recent times numerous techniques have been developed for interference mitigation. As these techniques used
a range of methodologies to address the interference challenge, it is necessary to thoroughly analyze current solutions. This
paper presents a comprehensive overview of the existing literature on interference issues and the solution approaches in LoRa.
Initially, the challenges in dense IoT networks are discussed. We next present the fundamentals of LoRa and the classification
of interference in the different categories. In each type of interference, the available methodologies are categorized based on
their solution approaches. The analysis of different solution approaches is summarized by examining various issues of the
LoRa network. Finally, the open issues and future directions related to the interference in the LoRa network are discussed.

Keywords Interference · Internet of things · LoRa · Low power wide area networks

1 Introduction connected devices in IoT networks demanding scalable and

energy-efficient wireless communication technologies. The
The Internet of Things (IoT) is a significant advancement that upcoming technologies must be capable of providing concur-
transforms the traditional Internet into a system of intercon- rent services to a large number of devices in dense networks
nected objects which collects data from the environment and [2]. The available wireless communication technologies are
integrates with the physical world [1]. The rapid growth of grouped as short-range and long-range communication tech-
nologies.
Short-range technologies are used in critical IoT applica-
B B. Shilpa
[email protected] tions which require low latency and high availability, with
battery life not being a major consideration [3]. Local area
Hari Prabhat Gupta
[email protected] networks benefit from these technologies since they are sim-
ple to install, configure, and manage. Fast data rates, high
Rajesh Kumar Jha
[email protected] availability, and occasional latency are the advantages of
short-range technologies. Radio Frequency Identification,
Syed Shakeel Hashmi
[email protected] Near Field Communication, Bluetooth Low Energy, Wireless
Highway Addressable Remote Transducer protocol, Zigbee,
1 Department of Computer Science and Engineering, AVN Zwave, IEEE 802.11ah, and Optical Wireless Communica-
Institute of Engineering and Technology, Hyderabad, India
tion are available short-range communication technologies
2 Department of Computer Science and Engineering, Indian [4]. In short-range technologies, Zigbee and Bluetooth were
Institute of Technology (IIT BHU), Varanasi, India
most considered to develop IoT applications. These stan-
3 Department of Electronics and Communication, IcfaiTech dards feature low power consumption, which is a crucial
(Faculty of Science and Technology), IFHE University,
requirement of IoT devices. The restricted range of these
Hyderabad, India

123
 B. Shilpa et al.

communication technologies is a major obstacle, especially this exponential growth in mobile traffic, the wireless net-
in applications that need to serve across city-wide. On the work sector creates and collects an unprecedented amount of
other hand, a wireless cellular network features longer com- data [14]. As per the International Data Corporation, there
munication range. But a large number of IoT devices seeking would be around 42 billion devices linked to the Internet
connection via a single base station will generate additional by 2025, and 80 zettabytes of data will be generated [15].
signalling and control traffic difficulties. As a result, Low Current wireless technologies need to overcome numerous
Power Wide Area Networks (LPWANs) has emerged as an challenges [16] to provide seamless services to IoT devices
ultimate option, working in both the licensed and unlicensed in dense networks. Some of the challenges are listed below:
spectrum and picking up the slack. The LPWAN is a mod-
ern wireless communication technology with features like • Scalability: Scalability is one of the major challenges in
low-power consumption and a longer communication range. IoT networks because of the high number of devices that
These features enable LPWAN as vital part of the wide range require simultaneous connectivity. The scaling problem is
of IoT applications. Though Sigfox [5] and LoRa [6] were multifaceted [17], including the communication network’s
among the first LPWAN technologies, there are a plethora of cost, complexity, and bandwidth efficiency. Future wire-
options now like Wi-SUN [7], Narrow Band-IoT (NB-IoT) less technologies serving dense IoT applications must have
[8], etc. efficient bandwidth and high capacity to handle millions
NB-IoT uses a licensed band and is a strong competitor of successful transmissions and an increased number of
for unlicensed LPWAN technologies [9]. All essential com- new devices joining the network every day [18].
munication components of IoT networks, such as minimal • Privacy and security: Privacy and security are ongoing con-
complexity, low energy consumption, and broad range are cerns for IoT applications due to the lack of standards in
included in the NB-IoT. The standard includes a 180 kilo- conventional deployments. Even though newly developing
hertz bandwidth and transmission rates of 250 kilo bytes per technologies [19, 20] are trying to overcome the secu-
second with a half-duplex service, among other characteris- rity issues with updated standards, the inter-dependency
tics [8]. NB-IoT devices will have shorter battery life, high of security, trust, and privacy for IoT networks is becom-
cost, high latency, and do not support handover. Because of ing a major challenge [21].
these limitations, NB-IoT is not a viable option for mobile • Inconsistent network: Unlike consumer applications, most
IoT applications. industrial deployments occur in remote areas with asym-
Apart from cellular IoT technologies, other LPWAN tech- metric terrain, structurally dense surroundings. The acces-
nologies use unlicensed parts of the Industrial, Scientific, and sibility of wireless technologies in these environments is
Medical (ISM) radio band to carry communications. LoRa, very low. In such scenarios, instead of conventional cel-
Sigfox, Weightless, Ingenu, and DASH7 are examples of lular technologies, it is advised to use LPWAN, which
unlicensed LPWAN technologies [10]. Sigfox was the first operates in the Sub-GHz frequency bands. The LPWAN
low-power wide-area network technology to be offered in technologies provide a broad range and great penetration
the IoT market, and it was developed in 2009. The Sig- capabilities for secure data connections throughout tall
fox network’s physical layer employs ultra narrow band buildings and structurally dense, geographically scattered
(UNB) technology combined with differential binary phase industry parks [10].
shift keying (DBPSK) and gaussian frequency-shift keying • Interference: The license-free ISM band of frequencies
(GFSK) modulation, which was selected as the primary com- has become a popular alternative for many wireless radio
munication protocol due to its extensive range and low power technologies due to its free availability. Intra-network and
requirements [11]. The constraint of Sigfox is the limited Inter-network interference are becoming more of a prob-
number of uplink messages, i.e., 140 per day and restricted lem as many connected devices use the same license-free
payload to 12 bytes for each uplink message [12]. In addition radio range [13].
to this constraint, its unopened network model not allowing
the rapid development as competitors. LoRa is most favored
LPWAN technology which allows for low-cost autonomous 1.2 Need for survey
network setup. LoRa’s openness makes it an ideal option for
a wide range of IoT deployments [13]. As IoT deployments continue to grow exponentially, the
demand for efficient and reliable communication in dense
1.1 Challenges in dense IoT networks IoT networks becomes crucial. However, the proliferation
of IoT devices in close proximity can lead to interference
The enormous growth in mobile traffic from the past cou- issues, degrading the performance and reliability of LoRa
ple of years is mostly because of the easy availability of networks. This interference can arise from factors such as
battery-powered, small, and low-cost IoT devices. Due to co-channel interference, adjacent channel interference, and

123
LoRa interference issues and solution approaches in dense IoT …

external interference sources. To ensure the optimal oper- Table 1 Summary of review articles related to LoRaWAN
ation of LoRa networks in dense IoT environments, it is
References Year Description of survey
essential to address these interference issues effectively.
LoRaWAN is an essential technology for connecting low- [22] 2017 This article discusses the framework and
power devices, hence there are a number of specialized protocol of LoRaWAN. Research
surveys covering a range of topics. In Table 1, we outline possibilities and outstanding difficulties
the several extant LoRaWAN survey papers and provide brief related to LoRaWAN applications have
been discussed
descriptions of each. We believe that there is a need for a par-
[23] 2017 This study analyzes the LoRaWAN
ticular survey for interference in LoRaWAN after looking at literature and compares the developed
other LoRaWAN review papers. Hence, this article presents a testbeds to determine the network’s
comprehensive survey on LoRa interference issues and solu- strengths and weaknesses. Additionally
tion approaches in IoT networks. It explores the challenges details LoRaWAN’s limitations
faced by LoRa networks in the presence of interference [24] 2017 This research assesses LoRa modulation in
light of the need for IoT devices
and discusses various techniques and strategies proposed by
researchers and industry practitioners to mitigate interference [25] 2018 This study surveys the literature on the
topics of security, physical layer, and
and improve network performance. Additionally, this survey MAC layer published in the IEEE explore
delves into the open issues and future directions related to database between 2015 and 2018
interference in LoRa networks. While significant progress [26] 2018 This paper presents a summary of the
has been made in understanding and mitigating interference literature on LoRa networking specifically
challenges, there are still areas that require further investi- [13] 2019 This paper provides a brief overview of
gation and improvement. By highlighting the open issues, contemporary LoRa-related challenges,
such as the impact of mobility on interference, the scalabil- including energy consumption,
communication range, error correction,
ity of interference mitigation techniques, importance of SF and multiple access
allocation, and the coexistence of LoRa with emerging tech- [27] 2019 This paper introduces readers to LoRaWAN
nologies, this survey aims to shed light on the research gaps technology by addressing architectural and
that need to be addressed. The rest of the paper is organized MAC protocol concerns and offering
as follows. The fundamentals of LoRa are presented in Sect. exploratory research possibilities
2. LoRa interference is discussed in Sect. 3. Sect. 4 discusses [18] 2020 The most up-to-date findings on Adaptive
Data Rate algorithms for LoRaWAN
about the solution approaches to mitigate the interference in
Technology are reviewed in this article
LoRa. Finally, the open issues and direction of research are
[28] 2020 The challenges that LoRaWAN faces in an
given in Sect. 5. extremely dense network are reviewed in
this study
[29] 2020 This article analyzes and reviews the
2 Fundamentals of LoRa technology security and privacy concerns with
LoRaWAN
LoRa is a popular LPWAN that is intended to enable wireless [30] 2020 This article provides a review and
classification of LoRaWAN mesh
communication to embedded devices with good endurance
networks with focus on multi-hop
over very long distances. It allows functionality that is com- communication in LoRaWAN mesh
parable to that of cellular data service, but it is tailored networks
specifically for applications that are centered on the IoT. [31] 2021 This article provides an overview of
When it comes to embedded functions, LoRa shines because simulation tools for LoRaWAN in ns-3
of its ability to trade off data speeds for very long ranges and [32] 2021 The review aims to enhance understanding
great durability. The LoRa technology comprises two main of the key elements influencing the
performance of LoRa technology
layers: the physical layer and the Medium Access Control
[33] 2022 This study provides an in-depth overview of
(MAC) layer. These layers work together to provide effi-
LoRa networking techniques and focuses
cient and robust communication for LoRaWAN-based IoT on their applicability and effectiveness in
networks. large-scale and long-term IoT deployments

2.1 LoRa

LoRa is a physical layer acquired and developed by Semtech

corporation that possesses higher-level properties for
implementing LPWANs. LoRa’s patented spread spectrum

123
 B. Shilpa et al.

Table 1 (continued) Tchi p = 1/BW , where BW = f max − f is the signal’s band-

width. The resulting expression for the modulating signal of
References Year Description of survey
the n th generic LoRa symbol is
[34] 2022 Review of different approaches for SF  
allocation in LoRaWAN to provide f _max + k(t − n.T _chi p) f or 0 ≤ t ≤ n.T _chi p
insights into the effectiveness and S(t) =
f + k(t − n.T _chi p) f or n.T _chi p < t ≤ T )
performance of SF allocation schemes
(1)
[35] 2022 This article provides an overview of the
latest advancements in LoRa technology
where k = ( f max − f )/T is the slope of the frequency vari-
[36] 2022 This study provides a broad overview of the
ations.
energy efficiency of LoRaWAN networks
and suggests some future research The receiver performs a "de-chirp" operation during
possibilities demodulation by multiplying each received symbol with a
[37] 2023 Explores the requirements and deployment down-chirp, which is the conjugate of an up-chirp. A single
scenarios of LoRa technology and frequency tone is produced as a result of this multiplication.
discusses the challenges associated with The output is then subjected to a Fast Fourier Transform
LoRa technology implementation and
operation (FFT) by the receiver. The peak in the spectrum that the FFT
[38] 2023 Highlights the potentials and challenges
generates corresponds to the original frequency. The modu-
associated with implementing LoRaWAN lation and demodulation process are structured as shown in
for massive IoT deployments Fig. 1 and the LoRa chirp signals are visualized in Fig. 2.
LoRa device transmission settings allow for customized
connection performance and power consumption. The key
parameters involved in configuring a LoRa transmission are:
modulation method, based on Chirp Spread Spectrum (CSS), Transmission Power (TP): The range of a LoRa radio is
incorporates Forward Error Correction (FEC) [39] to provide dependent on its transmission power, which may be adjusted
significant processing advantages for link budget improve- from − 4 dBm to + 20 dBm, but is otherwise fixed between
ments and resilience to multipath and interference. The LoRa − 2 dBm and + 20 dBm owing to hardware implementation
technology operates within the unlicensed sub-GHz ISM constraints. In addition, technical limitations restrict the util-
radio band, with specific frequency ranges depending on the isation of power levels beyond 17 dBm to a 1% duty cycle
region of deployment as 433–868 MHz (EU), 865–867 MHz [43].
(IN), 915MHz (AUS and US), and 923 (ASIA). However, Carrier frequency (CF): The carrier frequency is the
it also adheres to the duty cycle regulations. The duty cycle primary frequency used for data transmission and can be
refers to the proportion of time a device is actively transmit- fine-tuned in 61 Hz steps within the range of 137–1020 MHz.
ting within a given period. These regulations are essential in However, for LoRa chips, the available frequencies are gen-
unlicensed frequency bands to prevent any single device from erally between 860 and 1020 MHz.
monopolizing the channel, ensuring fair access and reducing Bandwidth (BW): Bandwidth indicates the width of the
interference. LoRa technology adheres to strict duty cycle transmission band. Increasing the BW results in a faster data
regulations, especially in unlicensed ISM bands. For exam- rate and less time on-air, but decreases sensitivity due to
ple, in Europe, devices in the 868 MHz band are typically additional noise. Conversely, a smaller BW improves sen-
limited to transmitting for 1% or 0.1% of each hour, depend- sitivity but lowers the data rate. For instance, a 125 kHz
ing on the sub-band. When compared to cellular and other bandwidth corresponds to a chip rate of 125 kbps. While
short-range wireless protocols, LoRa technology excels in the available bandwidth ranges from 7.8 to 500 kHz, typical
terms of transmission range and power usage. It has a range LoRa networks operate at bandwidths of 500 kHz, 250 kHz,
of up to 15 km in rural regions and up to 5 km in urban areas, or 125 kHz.
a device battery life of up to 10 years, and a data rate of Coding rate (CR): The LoRa device coding rate may be
between 0.3 and 37. kilobits per second [40]. set to one of four values (4/5, 4/6, 4/7, or 4/8) to optimize its
In LoRa modulation [41], the signal is distributed through- FEC for use against bursts of interference. The trade-off for
out the spectrum by creating a chirp signal, which is increased safety from a higher CR is more time on air.
characterized by a linear increase from f to f max (up-chirp) Spreading factor (SF): Spreading factor is a parameter
or fall f max to f (down-chirp) in frequency with time. The in LoRa modulation that determines the spreading of data
chirp-based modulation method used by LoRa allows for symbols over time and frequency. It specifies the degree
symbols to be derived by taking into account various circular of spreading or expansion applied to the transmitted signal,
shifts of the fundamental upchirp signal. For each symbol, impacting the data rate, range, and sensitivity of LoRa com-
the time-varying characteristics are divided into chips of time munication. The ratio of symbols per second to chips per

123
LoRa interference issues and solution approaches in dense IoT …

Fig. 1 Process flow diagram of LoRa modulation and demodulation [42]

Fig. 2 An illustration of LoRa chirp symbol [19]

second is known as the spreading factor. Mathematically SF out beacon packets, gateways can create more receive win-
can be defined as S F = log2 Rc /Rs , where Rc and Rs are dows in class B mode. Class C mode can receive downlink
chip rate and symbol rate, respectively. messages at any time (except while transmitting) and is not
limited in this regard. The timing diagram of different device
classes is shown in Fig. 4. LGs serve as transparent bridges
2.2 LoRaWan between LNs and NS. Connections between LGs and NS are
often made through a non-LoRa network. Since LGs do not
LoRaWAN is an open-access MAC layer protocol standard- enforce higher-level protocols, application data is encrypted
ized by LoRa Alliance. The LoRaWAN MAC layer dictates before being sent to the LNs. NS is the environment in which
the network topology, which in this case is a star of the the application’s actual purpose is carried out. Before arriving
star [44]. The LoRaWAN network architecture is comprised at the application server, packets from gateways are analyzed
of three distinct functional units known as LoRa Nodes and possible duplicates are rejected by NS.
(LNs), LoRa Gateways (LGs), and Network Servers (NS), LoRaWAN provides services including medium access,
as depicted in Fig. 3. LNs are categorized into three types: adaptive data Rate (ADR), and security. LoRaWAN MAC
class A, class B, and class C. LNs operating in class A and layer employs the primitive ALOHA MAC protocol [45]
B modes are often battery-powered, but LNs that work in by default, allowing LNs to begin transmitting without the
class C mode are typically mains-powered. Class A devices need for channel discovery and time synchronization imme-
have the lowest energy use, followed by classes B and C. diately after wakeup. ADR plays a crucial role in LoRaWAN
LNs of class A wait for an acknowledgement from the net- as it allows LNs to dynamically configure different data
work server inside one of two receive windows. By sending

123
 B. Shilpa et al.

Fig. 3 An illustration of the

LoRaWAN network architecture

Fig. 4 Timing diagram of

different LoRaWAN device
classes

rates based on network conditions. LoRaWAN uses two 128- spectrum results in a gradual escalation of background noise
bit, unique session keys called NwkSKey and AppSKey in due to the continuous addition of new radiating devices. ETSI
addition to advanced encryption standard (AES) methods TR 102 691 [46] has raised awareness regarding a poten-
to offer security. These keys are used for data encryption, tial concern related to electromagnetic interference affecting
message integrity verification, and node authentication. Two IoT networks. This interference is particularly noticeable in
activation processes are available for obtaining session keys: the network link that connects the sensors and gateways. The
activation by personalization (ABP) and over-the-air activa- document serves as an introduction to the subject, covering
tion (OTAA). such ground as the possible targets and implications of elec-
tromagnetic interference on Machine-to-Machine (M2M)
networks, which are essential parts of the IoT. The docu-
ment identifies two main sources of interference: intentional
3 Interference in loRa and unintentional. Intentional sources are typically associ-
ated with attempts to gain unauthorized access to telemetric
Wireless communication systems are inherently prone to
data during transmission or manipulate it. On the other hand,
interference due to the high probability of simultaneous
unintentional sources result from unintended electromag-
transmissions over the same communication medium. The
netic interactions that can disrupt the connectivity between
operation of an IoT system in unlicensed ISM bands has both
IoT end-devices and their corresponding gateways. Simi-
benefits and drawbacks. On the positive side, there are no
larly, In the case of LoRa, there are two distinct sources that
license fees involved. However, the shared utilization of the

123
LoRa interference issues and solution approaches in dense IoT …

Fig. 5 Classification of interference in LoRa network

can be identified: LoRa signals themselves and signals from

other sources. Interference occurs when two or more LoRa-
Fig. 6 Illustration of Co-SF and Inter-SF interference in LoRa
enabled devices are sending and receiving data at the same
time using the same set of transmission parameters ( f c , BW,
SF). Use of the unlicensed ISM band and an exponential rise Inter-SF interference: The imperfect orthogonality of sev-
in the number of devices are further contributing factors to eral SFs leads to Inter-SF interference. The transmissions
LoRa interference. Interference in LoRa networks is broadly from distinct SFs are not completely resistant to transmis-
categorized into two types: inter-network interference and sions from adjacent SFs, necessitating some degree of SIR
intra-network interference, as illustrated in Fig. 5. defense.
Inter-network interference Unlicensed spectrum is appeal-
ing because it allows network operators and individual
consumers to install wireless equipment without having to 3.1 Impact of interference on LoRa networks
deal with complicated and expensive regulatory overhead.
This adaptability has facilitated the creation of numerous Interference significantly affects the performance and relia-
applications in IoT. As a result, a rising number of individual bility of LoRa networks. It degrades signal quality, leading
networks are competing for transmission time in the unli- to increased bit error rates and packet loss, limiting the range
censed spectrum. These networks are extremely diverse in and coverage of the network [32]. Interference also reduces
features like radio frequencies, data rates, range, power con- data throughput, increases energy consumption, and causes
sumption, and reliability. As LoRa operates in the Sub-GHz network congestion and collisions. This results in unreliable
band, it may experience interference from the other commu- communication, impacting critical applications and consum-
nication technologies in the Sub-GHz band. ing more power. To better grasp and measure this impact,
Intra-network interference The success of LoRa among all this section highlights key performance degradation met-
LPWAN technologies is due to a diverse collection of param- rics, specifically focusing on packet success rate (PSR), bit
eters. LoRa is capable of satisfying long-range transmissions error rate (BER), and signal-to-interference-plus-noise ratio
with low-power consumption by actively tuning the network (SINR).
parameters. When the number of nodes per gateway grows, so
does the number of concurrent LoRa transmissions, increas- 3.1.1 Packet success rate
ing the likelihood of collisions. Despite the smart resource
allocation, the end nodes still experience interference based PSR is a vital metric representing the percentage of success-
on the SF used. Interference could occur between devices fully received packets out of the total transmitted packets.
that have the same SF or between devices that have different Both Co-SF and Inter-SF interference can significantly
SF. Figure 6 shows these types of interferences. reduce PSR. When multiple nodes use the same spreading
Co-SF interference The interference which occurs when factor and transmit simultaneously (Co-SF interference), the
two or more LoRa nodes employ the same SF to transmit likelihood of packet collisions increases, resulting in lower
data to a certain LoRa gateway at the same time is known PSR. Research has shown that in high-density networks,
as Co-SF interference. If the desired transmission’s Signal- PSR can experience a substantial decline due to Co-SF inter-
to-Interference Ratio (SIR) falls below a specific level, this ference [47]. Additionally, imperfect orthogonality among
might limit the scalability in practical high-density installa- different spreading factors (Inter-SF interference) can cause
tions. interference, particularly when the signal strengths of the

123
 B. Shilpa et al.

interfering signals are comparable. This can also lead to a of the propagation environment. To address this, researchers
reduction in PSR even in moderate network densities [48]. have developed frameworks [51] that estimate network cov-
erage using empirical interference data, providing insights
3.1.2 Bit error rate into the spectro-temporal behavior of shared band traffic and
enabling more reliable network planning. In dense environ-
BER measures the number of bit errors divided by the ments, where numerous sources interfere with the transmitted
total number of transmitted bits. BER is a direct indicator signal, causing noise and performance degradation. Studies
of the quality of the communication link and is adversely have evaluated the performance of LoRa systems under dif-
affected by interference. Increased Co-SF interference results ferent types of interference scenarios. The study of these
in higher BER due to the overlapping of signals. Experimen- evaluations help identifies interference mitigation techniques
tal results have demonstrated that BER can increase by an and optimize system performance in challenging environ-
order of magnitude under heavy Co-SF interference condi- ments. The existing approaches to mitigate the interference
tions [49]. Moreover, due to imperfect orthogonality, signals are summarized in Table 2. To analyze the existing meth-
from different spreading factors can interfere with each other ods to overcome the interference challenge, in this study two
(Inter-SF interference), causing an increase in BER. This is main approaches are employed: interference avoidance and
particularly problematic in environments with high signal interference mitigation.
density. Interference avoidance focuses on preventing or mini-
mizing interference before it occurs. It involves strategies
3.1.3 Signal-to-interference-plus-noise ratio and techniques that aim to optimize network parameters,
select suitable frequency channels, and employ intelligent
SINR is a measure of signal quality relative to the level of scheduling algorithms. By carefully managing the network
interference and background noise. Higher SINR values indi- resources and avoiding congested or noisy frequency bands,
cate better signal quality and improved network performance. interference can be minimized, leading to improved net-
Interference negatively impacts SINR in several ways. When work performance and reliability. Enhancing SF assignment
multiple nodes transmit using the same spreading factor (Co- schemes is one of the initial solutions proposed to address
SF interference), the cumulative interference reduces SINR, LoRa co-technology interference caused by high connectiv-
leading to poorer signal quality. Field tests have demonstrated ity demands. The capability of networks using the default
that in environments with significant Co-SF interference, LoRa ADR capabilities to handle data rate via fine-tuning
SINR can decrease markedly [50]. Additionally, imperfect LoRa physical settings is applicable in limited applications.
orthogonality among different spreading factors results in As a result, alternatives have been offered to the distance-
cross-interference, further reducing SINR. This reduction based strategy [93] that gives the SF to LNs in proportion to
varies based on network configuration and signal strengths, their physical distance from the LG.
but it can be significant. Interference mitigation aims to address interference that
The impact of interference on LoRa networks emphasizes has already occurred or is unavoidable. It involves techniques
the need for surveys and research on LoRa interference issues that enhance the robustness of the LoRaWAN system against
and approaches. Understanding the sources, characteristics, interference. These techniques may include advanced mod-
and effects of interference is crucial for developing effective ulation schemes, error correction coding, adaptive power
mitigation strategies. control, and interference cancellation algorithms. Interfer-
ence mitigation techniques help mitigate the impact of
interference, reduce packet loss, and maintain reliable com-
4 Solution approaches for interference munication even in the presence of challenging interference
in LoRa conditions. To address the non-orthogonality of SFs and
reduce co/inter SF interference, interference cancellation has
With the increasing proliferation of IoT devices operating in been shown to be effective [94], however it does necessitate
the ISM band, LoRa communication systems face significant dynamic signal processing approaches [95].
challenges due to high levels of interference. This interfer-
ence poses a major obstacle to the efficient deployment of
IoT applications, particularly in environments where interfer- 4.1 Solutions of Co-SF interference
ence levels are high. On the other hand, controlled spectrum
environments, where a single operator manages Quality In a dense IoT environment, a LoRa network is made up
of Service (QoS), experience less interference. Therefore, of a high number of LNs. Co-SF interference arises when
future LoRa-based IoT networks need to take into account multiple LNs use the same SF to transmit data to the LG at
the effect of various types of interference and the features the same time.

123
LoRa interference issues and solution approaches in dense IoT …

Table 2 Summary of LoRa interference solution approaches

Reference Year Type of Methodology Evaluation metrics

interference
Throughput Others

Afisiadis et al. [52] 2021 Co-SF Mathematical model 0.7 × non coherent
for coherent LoRa receiver
receiver
Kumari et al. [53, 2020 Co-SF SF allocation and Network and device
54] scheduling using utility have been
game theory enhanced
EF-LoRa [55] 2020 Co-SF Resource allocation Improved the energy
using optimization fairness by 177.8%
M-ASFA [56] 2020 Co-SF Mobility-aware SF Packet success rate:
assignment scheme 0.3xADR
FlipLoRa [57] 2020 Co-SF Encoding with 3.84 × conventional
interleaved LoRa
quasi-orthogonal
up-down chirp
Nscale [58] 2020 Co-SF Non-stationary 3.3 × conventional
amplitude scaling LoRa at SNR loss <
down-chirp 1.7 dB
SCLoRa [59] 2020 Co-SF Multi-dimensional 3 × conventional LoRa
cumulative spectral
coefficient
Temim et al. [60] 2020 Co-SF Successive Decreases the
interference number of
cancellation retransmitted
packets
Afisiadis et al. [50] 2020 Co-SF Low-complexity –
formulas for symbol
and frame error rates
E-ADR [61] 2019 Co-SF Mode of configuration 3xADR reduction in
based on the energy
estimated location of consumption
a device calculated
using historical
locations and the
trilateration
technique
Laporte-Fauret et al. 2019 Co-SF Signal time shift Improved spectrum
[62] estimation and efficiency
interference signal
attenuation
Elshabrawy et al. 2018 Co-SF Numerical 0.2xcoverage
[49] approximation of
BER as a function of
SNR and SIR
Rachkidy et al. [63] 2018 Co-SF Frequency comparison 2.5 × conventional
and timing LoRa
information
Noreen et al. [64] 2018 Co-SF Serial interference 2 × ALOHA
cancellation
Georgiou et al. [65] 2017 Co-SF Stochastic geometry –

123
 B. Shilpa et al.

Table 2 (continued)

Reference Year Type of Methodology Evaluation metrics

interference
Throughput Others

AlignTrack [66] 2023 Inter-SF Aligning windows and 5.5 × conventional

splitting packets LoRa
based on peak height
Fawaz et al. [67] 2021 Inter-SF Iterative gradient 2 × conventional LoRa
ascent, Game theory,
learning-based
approaches for SF
allocation
Pyramid [68] 2021 Inter-SF Monitor peak height 2.11 × conventional
variation with a LoRa
sliding demodulation
window
Shahid et al. [69] 2021 Inter-SF Concurrent 4 × conventional LoRa
Interference
cancellation
FREE [70] 2020 Inter-SF Scheduling approach 100% data delivery
to synchronize and > 10 years
transmissions battery lifetime
CoLoRa [71] 2020 Inter-SF Considered spectral 14 × conventional
peak ratio as feature LoRa
to separate collided
packets
mLoRa [72] 2019 Inter-SF Iterative successive 3 × conventional LoRa
interference
cancellation
Korbi et al. [73] 2018 Inter-SF An analytical model of Imperfect spreading
a single cell factors’
LoRaWAN under orthogonality in
unsaturated traffic, LoRaWAN slows
duty cycle and down the network
multi-channel performance
deployment
conditions
Staniec et al. [47] 2018 Inter-SF Experimental –
evaluation
EXPLoRa [74] 2017 Inter-SF “Ordered water filling” 3 × ADR
approach for SF
allocation
Benkhelifa et al. 2021 Joint SF Unfair/Fair SF Interference is the
[75] allocation main limitation to
algorithms, max–min throughput
throughput performance
optimization
Garlisi et al. [76] 2021 Joint SF LoRa receiver design 50% improvement in
with successive performance
interference
cancellation and time
synchronization

123
LoRa interference issues and solution approaches in dense IoT …

Table 2 (continued)

Reference Year Type of Methodology Evaluation metrics

interference
Throughput Others

Tapparel et al. [77] 2021 Joint SF Successive 4.7 × capacity

interference
cancellation,
bit-interleaved coded
modulation
Guo et al. [78] 2021 Joint SF Experimental 50% reduction in
evaluation transmission time
Ftrack [79] 2020 Joint SF Time-domain 3 × conventional LoRa
misaligned edges
and signal frequency
continuity
Croce et al. [80] 2020 Joint SF Analytical framework 2.5 × conventional
to model the LoRa
performance of
LoRa cells
Amichi et al. [81] 2019 Joint SF SF allocation 0.2 × conventional
algorithm based on LoRa
matching theory
Beltramelli et al. 2018 Joint SF Stochastic geometry Intercell interference
[82] and geometric reduces system
probability performance in
dense multi-cell
LoRa networks
Reynders et al. [83] 2017 Joint SF Optimizing the power Improvement of 50%
and spreading factor in packet error rate
for each node by
allocating distant
users to different
channels
Van den Abeele 2017 Joint SF Scalability study of 4.5 × conventional
et al. [84] LoRaWAN in NS3 LoRa
by considering an
error model
Bankov et al. [85] 2017 Joint SF Mathematical model –
with capture effect
ICSLoRa [86] 2021 Inter-NW An analytical model Capacity gain of 42%
using parallel logical
network
Marquez et al. [87] 2020 Inter-NW Experimental 14-dBm external
evaluation of interference creates
external interference total packet losses
OCT [88] 2020 Inter-NW Preamble detection,
SFD detection, and
packet decoding 3 × conventional
with time and LoRa
power offsets

123
 B. Shilpa et al.

Table 2 (continued)

Reference Year Type of Methodology Evaluation metrics

interference
Throughput Others

Andri et al. [89] 2018 Inter-NW Experimental –

evaluation, frame
structure analysis
RS-LoRa [90] 2018 Inter-NW Two-step lightweight 0.5 × LoRa
scheduling at
gateway and nodes
Orfanidis et al. [91] 2017 Inter-NW Experimental LoRa is much more
evaluation to tolerant than IEEE
investigate 802.15.4 g under
interference interference
interactions between
LoRa and IEEE
802.15.4 g networks
Thiemo et al. [92] 2017 Inter-NW Simulation evaluation Deploying multiple
using directional base stations
antenna outperform the use
of directional
antennae

4.1.1 Interference avoidance provides a dynamic allocation to minimize packet loss and
transmission time for each LoRa transmitter, but it only takes
Kumari et al. [53] found a different approach to allocate into account mobile nodes that follow a certain pattern.
the SF based on the needs of the node rather than the fixed
time. This methodology helps to overcome the interference
by estimating the time period of usage of specific SF per 4.1.2 Interference mitigation
node. Popular optimization techniques like Nash equilib-
rium and Stackleberg game concepts are used for interactions As there is a lack of synchronization between LoRa gate-
among LoRa devices and gateways. Optimal time duration way and LoRa devices, Temim et al. [60] come up with a
is founded for the nodes to use specific SF which helps to new design for a receiver. The proposed receiver is capable
reduce the interference. After finding the time duration they of synchronizing and decoding simultaneous non-orthogonal
have also proposed a scheduling algorithm [54] to allocate the LoRa signals. This design is considered for uplink communi-
SFs for a particular time duration. This methodology reduces cation and implemented by the use of successive interference
the waiting time in the network and increases the revenue, cancellation (SIC) algorithm. The synchronization process
and performance of the network. Gao et al. [55] proposed a consists of iterative calculations of fast fourier transform
resource allocation algorithm for achieving fair energy con- (FFT) of de-chirped samples which increases the complex-
sumption at LoRa devices. The resource allocation problem ity. This methodology is only suitable for Higher SFs and not
is modeled as a max–min optimization process, with the goal effective for lower SFs. The SF is one of the transmission
of increasing the worst-case energy efficiency of LNs. When parameters of LoRa. The authors in [52] designed a coher-
solving the max–min optimization problem, both energy con- ent receiver model by considering the same SF interference.
sumption and transmission efficiency are taken into account. They derived expressions for symbol error rate and frame
The system model is designed for multiple gateways and error rate. The complexity of expressions is reduced by the
also considered the impact of SFs, channels, and transmis- usage of bounds and approximations. With the use of sim-
sion power. ulation, compared the performance of the coherent receiver
In [56], the authors proposed a method to dynamically with the non-coherent receiver and proved the improvement
assign the SF to each stationary and mobile LoRa user. By in performance by 0.7dB. The authors in [50] proposed an
rescheduling SFs for mobile nodes according to the received interference model by considering the interference which is
signal strength from the destination LG, the ToA is decreased, not in alignment in phase or chip with the signal of interest.
and packet loss and retransmission are minimized, resulting Laporte-Fauret et al. [62] designed a receiver to decode two
in a higher packet success ratio. The enhanced-ADR [61] simultaneous LoRa signals with the same SF. This model
is designed by considering the particular structure of the

123
LoRa interference issues and solution approaches in dense IoT …

received signal, in which the time shift between two sig- Abdelfadeel et al. [70] proposed a fine-grained scheduling
nals is calculated. The results of the model are supported by algorithm called FREE to support bulk data transmissions.
simulation and also with the experimental setup. This algorithm allocates SFs to achieve concurrent transmis-
The use of a constant SIR threshold of 6dB to declare sions without collisions. The synchronization and allocation
coverage can significantly underestimate the coverage likeli- of SF add overhead to the algorithm and also increases energy
hood of LoRa signals under the same SF interference. This is consumption. This work is carried out by considering only
analyzed by the authors in [49]. The authors derived a numer- the applications which do not have hard delay requirements
ical approximation for BER under the same SF interference so it may not be applicable to other types of applications. The
by considering the impacts of both Signal-to-Noise Ratio formulation of the packet success probability was determined
(SNR) and SIR on the coverage probability. The scalability of for co-SF interference scenarios with respect to SNR values
LoRa is limited by many factors, one such factor is identified using stochastic geometry, which was then used to construct
in paper [65]. The effect of Co-SF interference is investi- a heuristic SF allocation algorithm.
gated by the use of a stochastic geometry model. It is been A more intelligent SF selection technique, called
analyzed that despite various interference protective mea- EXPLoRA-SF is presented by Cuomo et al. [74] to reduce
sures available to LoRa, efficiency decays exponentially with interference among groups of devices with different SFs and
the number of LNs, limiting its scalability. Rachkidy et al. to boost overall network performance. This technique aims
[63] proposed two algorithms for decoding synchronized and to demonstrate that by allocating larger-than-needed SFs,
slightly desynchronized LoRa signals. These algorithms are network capacity can be improved. This follows a simple
implemented by using the timing information of the signals. heuristic approach for allocating SF’s. The advanced version
In [64], the researchers explore the capture effect and SIC EXPLoRA-AT [96] uses ‘ordered water filling’ strategy to
as key techniques to establish a robust LoRa-based system, allocate SF’s which achieves the same time on air for each
effectively mitigating collisions and supporting channel sens- group of interferers. These algorithms are developed by con-
ing in scenarios where the LG’s wide coverage area poses sidering the single gateway scenario so the extension for
challenges. The SIC approach involves combining received multiple gateways is in scope. Many of the earlier research
signals to recognize concurrent transmissions successfully. works on LoRa considered that the network of multiple
On the other hand, the capture effect enables successful gateways can be analyzed as a simple superposition of inde-
demodulation of a minimum of one signal in the presence of pendent sub-networks. But collisions can hinder the proper
several colliding signals. By implementing these techniques, reception of simultaneous transmissions employing different
the throughput of LoRa network is significantly enhanced. SFs in near-far conditions. The impact of imperfect orthogo-
However, it’s important to note that best outcomes were nality of SFs is experimentally proved by Croce et al. in [48].
observed when difference in power between the received sig- In this work, LoRa modulation is mathematically analyzed
nals was above a particular threshold. and simulation findings are tested by real-time experiments.
The authors in [73] presented a model which analyzes the
4.2 Solutions of inter-SF interference LoRaWAN performance under both perfect and imperfect
SF orthogonality by considering the duty cycle, unsaturated
In the early phases of research on LoRa, numerous studies traffic, and multi-channel deployment conditions.
have been conducted to explore resource optimization meth- The authors of [97] discuss the necessity of a high SF
ods aimed at enhancing the efficiency of the LoRa system by for robust LoRa communication over a channel with high
mitigating the interference. However, it is important to note time-variability. In particular, they make use of the expo-
that the earlier literature assumes perfect SF orthogonality, nential relationship between Rayleigh fading and the frame
which, unfortunately, does not accurately reflect real-world error rate of a LoRa receiver using CSS modulation. They
scenarios. Recognizing the limitations of the idealized SF found that as the payload size increased, the reliability of
orthogonality assumption, researchers have begun to delve LN deployed with high SF and transmitting over quickly
into exploring techniques that account for the effects of shifting channels degraded. The experiment reported in [98]
imperfect SF orthogonality. used a public LoRaWAN network with many LGs to col-
lect data from a variety of LNs spread over a medium-sized
4.2.1 Interference avoidance city. The objective was to determine the multipath fading,
loss burstiness, frame length, and FEC needed for reliable
Fawaz et al. [67] utilized various optimization algorithms LoRa communication. By modifying the SF and the num-
to fairly allocate SFs in a multi-operator LoRa network to ber of frame repetitions, this technique was used to improve
maximize the throughput. The authors also used RNN for the target LoRaWAN network’s reliability and time-on-air
predicting the success rate of the SF so that each network will performance. In order to measure the LoRa communication
assign SFs with minimum cooperation with other networks.

123
 B. Shilpa et al.

system’s immunity to interference and multipath fading con- 4.3 Solutions of joint interference
cerns, three distinct sensitivity areas were designed in [47].
The primary characteristics of LoRa SF, BW, CR were used The solutions for reducing the interference in LoRa network
to create these groups. by considering both Co-SF and Inter-SF interferences are
discussed here.
4.2.2 Interference mitigation
4.3.1 Interference avoidance
The authors in paper [72] developed a protocol called mLoRa
to decode the multiple collided packets from different LoRa The authors in [81] proposed SF allocation algorithm by
devices. In this protocol, the special features of LoRa like considering the joint interference. For optimization of SF
CSS, M-FSK modulation and demodulation are utilized. allocation, they approached max–min optimization and pro-
The decoding process is split into two categories like chirp posed an algorithm based on matching theory. In [103], the
level and sample level to make implementation easier. The joint SF and power allocation problem has been solved.
authors also worked on the enhancement of the protocol to Assigning SFs with a fixed amount of power and allocat-
reduce the impact of noise and frequency offset. Experimen- ing resources with a limited number of SFs are two separate
tal results showed that this protocol has achieved 3 times parts of the problem. For optimal SF allocation proposed an
of conventional LoRa throughput. Without utilizing power algorithm based on matching theory and for optimal power
offset, mLoRa will be invalid for tiny time offsets. In the allocation used linear and quadratic approximation functions.
same line, Tong et al. [71] developed CoLoRa to enable the The joint optimal SF and Power allocation is also analyzed
multi-packet reception in LoRa. In this protocol, the packet by Benkhelifa et al. [75]. In this work, it is introduced to
time offset is used to decode the multiple collided packets use the energy harvesting time to maximize the minimum
from one collision. The time offset is converted into fre- time-averaged data rate. For SF allocation, proposed fair and
quency features to make it easy for the calculation of symbols. unfair algorithms which allocate the same and different SF’s
A method to extract precise peak ratios by canceling the to LoRa devices. In order to optimize the packet error rate
inter-packet interference is presented. The effect of redun- in a LoRaWAN cell, the power and SF of each node need
dant packet reception at multiple gateways on data reliability to be optimized. Therefore, Reynders et al. [83] proposed a
is investigated by Minming et al. in [99]. The probability of a scheme for the optimal distribution of SF by considering the
successful reception without re-transmission is measured by perfect power control.
Average Successful Transmission Probability (ASTP). This
is a function of the LNs density, gateway density, and traffic 4.3.2 Interference mitigation
intensity.
In [100], the capacity of the legacy LoRa network was In order to simulate interference, Van den Abeele et al. [84]
boosted to accommodate more LNs. This enhancement was developed an NS3 model. This research presents a novel
achieved by developing a comprehensive receiver with an technique by first creating a LoRa error model utilizing thor-
interference cancellation scheme, channel estimation, and ough and complicated baseband bit error rate simulations
packet detection models. However, the implementation of and then employing the model in an interference analysis.
these improvements posed significant challenges. An alter- The effectiveness of the LoRa receiver was measured while
native uplink scheme was introduced in [101], utilizing SIC it was subjected to both Co-SF and Inter-SF interference
and exploiting the unique characteristics of received super- by Zhu et al. [104]. Concurrent transmissions of LoRa with
posed LoRa-like signals. To preserve the limited energy identical and different SFs are simulated. With results, it is
resources of LNs, the proposed schemes were implemented shown that higher SFs are more immune to interference. SF
in LGs, resulting in reduced energy consumption for LNs and pipeline scheduling is introduced to improve the performance
improved spectral efficiency through fewer re-transmitted of concurrent transmissions in LoRa. The authors in [105]
packets. Conversely, [102] focused on enhancing the down- developed a simulator for LoRaWAN and conducted simula-
link in LoRa-like networks by designing a novel multiuser tions under three different conditions to evaluate the impact
detector. The objective was to effectively limit the number of collisions. Collision models accounting inter-SF interfer-
of acknowledgments sent after successful packet reception, ence, co-SF interference, and capture effect were found to
which directly impacted the overall reliability of the LoRa- be able to obtain higher throughput than the baseline model.
based network. This means that any collision results in the loss of all colliding
packets. Xia et al. [79] presented a model called Ftrack, which
uses a time domain and frequency domain features of a signal
to decode the collided transmissions. To remove interference,
signal frequency continuity is detected and then time-domain

123
LoRa interference issues and solution approaches in dense IoT …

information from symbol edges is used to recover symbols The performance study of the LoRa receiver discussed the
from all collided frames. By considering joint interference, benefits of multi-hop LoRa networks over single-hop LoRa
LoRa link level performance is analyzed in [80] by Daniele networks for assuring broad network coverage and improving
et al. In this study, the effect of high capture probability and indoor penetration in [110]. Additionally, the SIR required
imperfect orthogonality of SF on the capacity of LoRa cell to permit the orthogonality of SFs was examined and it was
is analyzed. Capture effects and inter-SF collisions have a determined that when numerous LNs used the same SF to
significant impact on LoRa link-level efficiency, which can transmit time-synchronized packets, the LoRa network was
result in a loss if the interference power is high enough. Bel- immune to interference. The reception performance of LoRa
tramelli et al. [82] designed a model for evaluating the uplink packets was tested experimentally in [78]. It was discovered
performance of LoRa in a multicell system. In this work, that there is a compromise between the physical parameter
joint interference is considered and intra-cell and intercell and packet reception performance when the SNR is negative.
interference is also considered to calculate the success prob- LoRa performance was found to be significantly impacted by
ability under different distributions of the gateway. It is been packet length. This realization led to the creation of a trans-
observed that inter-cell interference causes a negative impact mission method that manages three critical factors: delay,
on the network performance which can be reduced by allocat- power consumption, and reliability.
ing proper SF by considering not only interference within the
cell but also need to consider the interference in neighboring 4.4 Solutions of inter-network interference
cells.
Another analytical model is given in the paper [106] con- LoRa is mainly used for applications that need to cover a
sidered joint interference and calculated the single gateway large area. Long-distance LoRa communications are sus-
LoRaWAN throughput under the necessary conditions for ceptible to interference from a variety of sources, which
successful transmission. It is been noticed that imperfect can increase background noise and decrease system per-
orthogonality of SF and allocation strategies will have a formance. The literature presented in earlier sections have
non-negligible impact on the throughput of the network. Scal- looked at the efficiency and scalability of LoRa communi-
ability of multiannuli single-cell LoRa Network under joint cation by considering the interactions between and within
interference is analyzed by Mahmood et al. in [107]. The LoRa networks. However, research into the coexistence of
interference field is represented as a Poisson-Point-Process LoRa and other wireless communication technologies has
using Stochastic Geometry. Using three distinct allocation seen less exposure. online concurrent transmission (OCT)
strategies, the authors investigated how SF allocation affects at LoRa gateway is a revolutionary approach presented by
network performance. A similar approach was employed Wang et al. [88] that recovers collision packets at the gateway
in [108], which evaluated success and coverage probabil- and, in turn, increases LoRaWAN throughput. OCT allows a
ity while lowering the computational complexity required to LoRa gateway to concurrently accept several collided pack-
acquire these probabilities for all interference types. ets from separate LoRa ends. Edward et. al in [111] and
In [85], a mathematical model was introduced as an exten- [86] introduced interleaved chirp spreading (ICS) LoRa to
sion of [109], which incorporates the capture effect in the increase the capacity of LoRa by adding one additional bit
LoRaWAN channel access process. By precisely specifying per symbol in each transmission. Later they deployed ICS
the data transmission process, suggested model increases the LoRa as a parallel logical network to traditional LoRa and
network’s capability and guarantees consistent LoRa-based studied the inter-network interference and also developed a
transmission, particularly with regard to the power differ- model to find the BER of LoRa under the interference of
ence of signals received concurrently from numerous LoRa ICS LoRa. Reynders et al. [90] used a scheduling approach
transmitters. In [76], a LoRa receiver called LoRaSyNc was to overcome the collisions. The capture effect can be miti-
designed to push the limits of LoRa network capacity further. gated by using a two-stage lightweight scheduling approach
This receiver goes beyond standard demodulation methods that groups nodes with similar transmission strengths. In
by bringing a clock tracking mechanism into the frame recep- order to avoid packet collisions, the gateway’s coarse-grained
tion process and synchronizing the superimposed signals. scheduling instructed the nodes to use multiple SFs for con-
These enhancements contribute to enhancing the network’s current broadcasts.
performance. The authors of [77] developed a SIC LoRa Marquez et al. [87] developed a model to determine the
receiver to address the instability of LoRaWAN networks. immunity region for the uplink LoRa system with LOS
To find and eliminate the strongest interfering signal, the conditions. Experimentally determined the amount of elec-
two-user detector employs bit interleaved coded modulation. tromagnetic interference needed for blocking a channel in
It considers a soft-demodulator and soft-decoder to achieve LoRa. Cross-technology interference between LoRa and
reasonable error rates, particularly in the challenging low IEEE 802.15.4g was experimentally evaluated by the authors
SNR zone of LoRa communication. of [91]. LoRa is typically more resistant to interference than

123
 B. Shilpa et al.

IEEE 802.15.4g, with the radio settings (SF and BW) being experimental setups using commercial off-the-shelf (COTS)
critical to the level of tolerance. Lauridsen et al. [112] per- LoRa nodes and software-defined radios. Selective jamming,
formed a measurement study for finding the signal activity in which targets specific channels or transmission windows,
ISM band 868 MHz. The measurements showed the degrada- exacerbates the problem. Utilizing commodity hardware,
tion of the SIR which may block access to the target channel attackers can execute practical jamming attacks that exploit
and will impact the coverage and capability of LPWANs. the slow modulation type used in LoRa protocols. This type
Sun et al. [113] introduced the PSR scheme to address of attack can selectively disrupt certain communications
the challenge of cross technology interference (CTI) in without affecting others, making it particularly insidious.
LPWANs, particularly focusing on LoRa technology. Their The vulnerabilities of LoRa and LoRaWAN protocols to such
method identifies and uses uncorrupted LoRa chips for selective jamming attacks have been highlighted, with sug-
reliable packet recovery, significantly improving packet gestions for a range of countermeasures to mitigate these
reception from 45.2 to 82.2% in real-world testbeds. The threats in [116].
authors demonstrate the effectiveness of PSR under vari- Experimental studies further reveal the extent of the
ous interference scenarios, highlighting its robustness against impact that jamming can have on network performance.
Wi-Fi, ZigBee, and Bluetooth interference. Xu et al. [114] When attackers emit RF interference signals simultane-
designed SLoRa, a systematic framework to enhance interfer- ously with LoRa end nodes, it results in packet collisions
ence resilience in LPWANs by integrating symbol recovery and transmission failures, significantly degrading network
and soft decoding. SLoRa employs a two-stage analy- performance. These studies [117] involve implementing a
sis to accurately recover corrupted symbols and estimates LoRa jammer on commercial devices and adjusting jammer
the confidence of these symbols to improve error correc- settings to evaluate the impact of transmission configura-
tion. The framework is evaluated using real-world testbeds, tions on jamming effectiveness. The findings emphasize that
demonstrating a 1.4 × improvement in CTI protection non-orthogonality in LoRa transmission can influence the
with minimal computational overhead. This comprehensive effectiveness of jamming attacks, pointing to the need for
approach provides a significant advancement in mitigating countermeasures to alleviate such threats. Moreover, perfor-
cross-technology interference in LPWANs, ensuring reliable mance evaluations under various jamming scenarios indicate
performance in diverse interference scenarios. that LoRaWAN networks are particularly vulnerable to jam-
ming attacks. Simulations show that network throughput can
4.5 Intentional interference in LoRa decrease by approximately 56% when multiple jammers con-
tinuously send unauthenticated packets within the network
Intentional interference, commonly referred to as jamming, [118]. The performance of gateways is also dramatically
poses a significant threat to the reliability and security of affected, as resources required to process packets from jam-
LoRa networks. Unlike unintentional interference, which mers can be up to 100 times higher than that for regular
occurs due to electromagnetic interactions, intentional inter- end-devices. The impact of jammers is highly correlated with
ference is a deliberate attempt to disrupt communication by their classification, with channel-oblivious jammers affect-
overpowering the signal with noise or other signals. Given ing the network performance broadly, while channel-aware
the widespread use of the unlicensed ISM bands for LoRa, jammers have more localized effects [119]. These insights
the risk of jamming is an important consideration. underscore the need for robust jamming mitigation strate-
Jamming attacks in LoRa networks pose a substantial gies tailored to different jamming types.
threat to network performance and reliability. These attacks
involve malicious transmitters emitting radio frequency sig-
nals to disrupt communication between LoRa end nodes
and gateways. Research indicates that while the LoRa phys- 5 Discussion and future directions
ical layer is robust, it remains vulnerable to high-power,
synchronized jamming chirps, which can prevent gateways Existing research has highlighted that the connectivity
from receiving data from nodes across the network. An requirements of massive IoT surpass the capabilities of
empirical study [115] demonstrates that although LoRa PHY LoRaWAN due to its limited features such as SFs rang-
is designed to be resilient, synchronized jamming chirps ing from 7 to 12, available BWs of 125 kHz, 250 kHz,
can still effectively disrupt communication, rendering tradi- and 500 kHz, and CR of 4/5, 4/6, 4/7, and 4/8. Manag-
tional protection solutions like collision recovery and parallel ing the massive connectivity demands and minimizing the
decoding ineffective. To counter this, a new method has been impact of interference in ultra-dense deployments using
proposed that separates LoRa chirps from jamming chirps LoRaWAN’s standard ADR and CSS modulation is a chal-
by leveraging their differences in received signal strength lenging task. This leads to issues such as interference and
within the power domain, showing promising results in collisions between concurrent transmissions, resulting in

123
LoRa interference issues and solution approaches in dense IoT …

significant network performance degradation, making the tra- improve SF assignment mechanisms. Adjusting LoRa phys-
ditional version of LoRaWAN unsuitable for such scenarios. ical parameters with the standard LoRa ADR feature is now
In response to these issues, researchers have proposed a num- at its limit. LNs can adjust their signal strength and range
ber of changes to the LoRaWAN protocol to make the LoRa according to the amount of bandwidth and frequency being
network more robust and scalable. However, there are still used via SF allocation. SFs may be allocated at random, in
several open research challenges that need further investiga- accordance with the distance between the LN and the LG,
tion, including efficient management of massive connectivity or in accordance with the data requirements and communi-
demands, interference mitigation and collision avoidance, cation link quality. Efficient and reliable data transfer over
network scalability, energy efficiency, and security and pri- a fair LoRaWAN has been investigated, although this is not
vacy concerns. Additionally, methodologies for detecting guaranteed due to the fact that fairness considerations gener-
interference and standard parameter allocation to improve ally ignore time-variable event occurrence rates, data arrival
network performance are areas that require further explo- rates, and LN mobility. While the previously mentioned
ration. Open problems in the interference of LoRa networks, SF assignment techniques have shown promise in lowering
which have not been fully considered in existing solutions, interference and increasing network scalability, the restricted
also need to be addressed. number of SF variants still prevents the seamless connecting
of a large number of LNs in large-scale IoT deployments. SF
assignment could be implemented into a cross-layer protocol
5.1 Mobility
that bridges the gap between LoRa’s physical layer qualities
and LoRaWAN’s MAC layer capabilities, with the added
The mobility of nodes will have a substantial influence on
bonus of transmission scheduling, to alleviate this limitation.
network interference. The mobility of nodes introduces addi-
With this strategy, LoRaWAN capacity would be increased
tional challenges in managing interference and optimizing
and problems brought on by large-scale IoT deployments
resource allocation. When nodes move, their positions rela-
would be resolved.
tive to other nodes and gateways change, resulting in varying
signal strengths and interference patterns. This dynamic
nature of node mobility can impact the overall network per-
5.3 Gateway densification
formance and necessitates the development of appropriate
solutions.
One suggested approach for improving network performance
Almost all research works presume LoRa nodes to be sta-
is the deployment of multiple gateways in a network. How-
tionary and formulate solutions based on such assumption.
ever, as the number of gateways increases, the risk of
However, in practice, LoRa nodes do not need to be fixed
collisions also rises, posing a challenge. Researchers can
and may move because no particular handover mechanism is
draw inspiration from cellular networks to devise innovative
required. As a result, resource allocation methods, scheduling
densification strategies for LoRa networks while consider-
algorithms, and any other strategies used to reduce inter-
ing inherent constraints like duty cycle restrictions and low
ference must take this parameter into account and develop
throughput. Most existing research focuses on interference
solutions appropriately.
reduction strategies for single-gateway networks, making
Furthermore, the impact of node mobility on interfer-
them inadequate for multiple-gateway scenarios. It becomes
ence needs to be thoroughly understood and characterized.
essential to enhance these methodologies to address the
Research efforts should focus on analyzing the effects of node
unique requirements and challenges presented by networks
movement on signal propagation, interference patterns, and
with multiple gateways. However, architectural adjustments
collision probabilities. This analysis can provide insights into
may be required to adapt the existing LoRaWAN to these
designing efficient interference mitigation techniques and
improvements. Densification strategies should be carefully
optimizing network performance in the presence of mobile
crafted to allow for coordinated action within and across
nodes. Considering node mobility in LoRa networks opens
cells without increasing the likelihood of collisions between
up new avenues for research and development. It enables
simultaneous LG transmissions.
the design of adaptive and robust solutions that can handle
To address the challenges associated with increased col-
the challenges associated with dynamic node positions and
lisions in multi-gateway scenarios, innovative interference
varying interference conditions.
mitigation techniques and efficient scheduling methods are
required. One approach could involve implementing cen-
5.2 SF allocation and scheduling tralized or distributed coordination mechanisms that allow
gateways to share information and schedule transmissions
One of the first proposed remedies to interference brought in a way that minimizes overlap and interference. Machine
on by rising connectivity needs in LoRa networks is to learning algorithms could also be employed to predict and

123
 B. Shilpa et al.

dynamically adjust to changing network conditions, optimiz- number of devices without significant performance degrada-
ing the use of available spectrum and reducing collision rates. tion. Current techniques often struggle with the increasing
Additionally, developing protocols that enable gateways to density of LoRa nodes, leading to higher rates of collisions
sense their environment and make real-time decisions based and interference. Future research should focus on develop-
on interference levels could enhance the overall performance ing scalable solutions that can dynamically adapt to varying
and reliability of the network. network conditions. This includes exploring advanced algo-
rithms for adaptive data rate management, dynamic SF
allocation, and more sophisticated scheduling mechanisms.
5.4 Efficiency in interference mitigation
Additionally, leveraging machine learning techniques to pre-
dict network congestion and adjust parameters proactively
In managing LoRa networks, it is crucial to effectively handle
could provide significant improvements in scalability.
power resources due to the low-power nature of the tech-
nology. While LoRa transmissions are generally low-power,
addressing collisions and interference challenges requires 5.6 Energy efficiency
complex computations. Therefore, any solution approach
must carefully consider the low-power characteristic and Energy efficiency remains a paramount concern for LoRa
design strategies accordingly to ensure efficient power man- networks, particularly because many IoT devices are battery-
agement. powered and expected to operate for extended periods with-
Interference cancellation techniques are implemented out maintenance. Effective interference mitigation should not
either on LNs or LGs to decode several overlapping LoRa come at the cost of increased energy consumption. Future
signals delivered using distinct SFs. Fast Fourier transform research should explore low-power algorithms and protocols
and discrete Fourier transform are two signal processing tech- that can effectively manage interference while preserving
niques that can separate overlapping signals. The capture energy resources. Techniques such as energy-efficient MAC
effect, in which only the signal with the greatest strength protocols, duty cycling strategies, and energy-aware routing
is deciphered, is another possibility that might be looked can help in maintaining a balance between performance and
into. Effective decoding involves identifying frame pream- energy consumption. Additionally, energy harvesting and
bles from the received signal. However, these methods can management techniques could be integrated to prolong the
be time-consuming and require additional energy consump- operational life of IoT devices.
tion, particularly when exchanging information about the
SF and CR used for transmission. These factors make these
5.7 Adding intelligence
approaches unsuitable for time-sensitive data and drive up the
cost of receivers, neither of which is acceptable in LPWANs.
As LoRa networks continue to expand and face challenges
There must be a compromise between network performance
related to interference, machine learning and deep learning
and cost when adopting interference mitigation solutions for
techniques emerge as promising solutions for effective inter-
LoRa signals, especially in regard to the received packet rate.
ference mitigation. By leveraging the capabilities of these
When devising interference mitigation approaches for
advanced computational approaches, LoRa networks can
LoRa networks, energy efficiency becomes a crucial con-
enhance their interference detection, prediction, and manage-
sideration. Balancing the reduction of interference while
ment capabilities, leading to improved network performance
maintaining low power consumption is essential. Solutions
and reliability.
should strive to optimize energy usage while effectively man-
The characteristics of LoRa demodulation are utilized in
aging interference, ensuring a reliable and efficient network.
numerous research works to decode received information in
This involves exploring techniques that minimize energy-
the presence of interference. Even though numerous optimal
intensive computations, prioritize time-sensitive informa-
approaches have been proposed, decoding each sample is
tion, and find the right balance between cost and perfor-
an iterative and complex process. Upgrading the traditional
mance. By focusing on energy efficiency in interference
modulation-demodulation process with the current machine-
mitigation strategies, LoRa networks can achieve both effec-
learning techniques is one of the most essential study efforts
tive interference management and optimized power resource
in this sector. Adding intelligence to the process may lessen
utilization.
the complexity.
By implementing autonomous resource allocation, LNs
5.5 Scalability of mitigation techniques have the capability to independently determine their trans-
mission parameters, such as SF and CR, based on their own
The scalability of interference mitigation techniques is crit- communication needs. This allows for a more efficient uti-
ical for ensuring that LoRa networks can support a growing lization of the available network resources and reduces the

123
LoRa interference issues and solution approaches in dense IoT …

likelihood of interference. Moreover, distributed schedul- References

ing schemes enable LNs to coordinate their transmissions
in a distributed manner, ensuring that concurrent trans- 1. Al-Fuqaha, A., Guizani, M., Mohammadi, M., Aledhari, M., &
Ayyash, M. (2015). Internet of Things: A survey on enabling
missions do not result in collisions. Through collaborative
technologies, protocols, and applications. IEEE Communications
self-organization, LNs can exchange information about their Surveys Tutorials, 17(4), 2347–2376.
transmission schedules, network conditions, and interfer- 2. Vashi, S., Ram, J., Modi, J., Verma, S., & Prakash, C. (2017).
ence patterns. This collaborative approach empowers the Internet of Things (IoT): A vision, architectural elements, and
security issues, In 2017 Proceedings of I-SMAC (pp. 492–496).
LNs to make informed decisions regarding their transmis-
3. Bembe, M., Abu-Mahfouz, A., Masonta, M., & Ngqondi, T.
sions, enabling them to dynamically adjust their transmission (2019). A survey on low-power wide area networks for IoT appli-
parameters to avoid interference with neighboring nodes. cations. Telecommunication Systems Modelling Analysis Design
These autonomous and distributed resource allocation and Management, 71(2), 249–274.
4. Wang, H., & Fapojuwo, A. O. (2017). A survey of enabling tech-
and scheduling schemes promote efficient use of network
nologies of low power and long-range machine-to-Machine com-
resources while minimizing interference and collisions in munications. IEEE Communications Surveys Tutorials, 19(4),
LoRa networks. 2621–2639.
5. Sigfox, https://www.sigfox.com/ Accessed on [March 18, 2022].
6. Semtech, https://www.semtech.com/lora Accessed on [Feb 8,
6 Conclusion 2022].
7. Wi-SUN alliance, https://wi-sun.org/, Accessed on [July 18,
2022].
LoRa technology holds great promise for providing reliable 8. Hoglund, A., Lin, X., Liberg, O., Behravan, A., Yavuz, E. A., Van
long-range communication in massive IoT networks. How- Der Zee, M., Sui, Y., Tirronen, T., Ratilainen, A., & Eriksson, D.
ever, the scalability of the system is hindered by difficulties (2017). Overview of 3GPP release 14 enhanced NB-IoT. IEEE
such as signal interference and collisions during concurrent Network, 31(6), 16–22.
9. Dawy, Z., Saad, W., Ghosh, A., Andrews, J. G., & Yaacoub, E.
transmissions. This survey looks at state-of-the-art technolo- (2017). Toward massive machine type cellular communications.
gies for interference reduction and intends to analyze the IEEE Wireless Communications, 24(1), 120–128.
scalability problems associated with installing LoRaWAN in 10. Centenaro, M., Vangelista, L., Zanella, A., & Zorzi, M. (2016).
ultra-dense IoT networks. This work stands out by offering a Long-range communications in unlicensed bands: The rising stars
in the IoT and smart city scenarios. IEEE Wireless Communica-
comprehensive review of LoRaWAN interference issues and tions, 23(5), 60–67.
solutions that goes beyond previous surveys on the topic. 11. Ikpehai, A., Adebisi, B., Rabie, K. M., Anoh, K., Ande, R. E.,
It provides a broad overview of interference in LoRaWAN Hammoudeh, M., & Mbanaso, U. M. (2018). Low-power wide
and categorizes the different types of interference, while also area network technologies for Internet-of-Things: A comparative
review. IEEE Internet of Things Journal, 6(2), 2225–2240.
discussing the existing solutions available in the literature 12. Gomez, C., Veras, J. C., Vidal, R., Casals, L., & Paradells, J.
for each category. Many of the existing solutions leverage (2019). A Sigfox energy consumption model. Sensors, 19(3), 681.
the unique features of LoRa to increase network capacity, 13. Sundaram, J. P. S., Du, W., & Zhao, Z. (2020). A Survey on
while others propose new protocols or receiver designs and LoRa Networking: Research Problems, Current Solutions, and
Open Issues. IEEE Communications Surveys & Tutorials, 22(1),
employ signal processing techniques to mitigate interfer- 371–388.
ence. Despite the progress made, there is still a need for 14. Bi, S., Zhang, R., Ding, Z., & Cui, S. (2015). Wireless communi-
additional efforts to create reliable and scalable LoRa-based cations in the era of big data. IEEE Communications Magazine,
massive IoT systems. As a result, the survey highlights sev- 53(10), 190–199.
15. IDC, https://www.idc.com/ Accessed on [Nov 18, 2022].
eral promising research directions that can provide valuable 16. Chen, S., Xu, H., Liu, D., Hu, B., & Wang, H. (2014). A vision
guidance to researchers aiming to design efficient and scal- of IoT: Applications, challenges, and opportunities with China
able LoRaWAN systems. perspective. IEEE Internet of Things Journal, 1(4), 349–359.
17. Saluja, D., Singh, R., Baghel, L. K., & Kumar, S. (2021).
Author contributions All authors contributed to the study conception Scalability analysis of LoRa network for SNR-based SF alloca-
and design. Material preparation, data collection and analysis were per- tion scheme. IEEE Transactions on Industrial Informatics, 17,
formed by B Shilpa, Hari Prabhat Gupta, Rajesh Kumar Jha and Shakeel 6709–6719.
Hashmi S. The first draft of the manuscript was written by B Shilpa 18. Kufakunesu, R., Hancke, G. P., & Abu-Mahfouz, A. M. (2020). A
and all authors commented on previous versions of the manuscript. All survey on adaptive data rate optimization in LoRaWAN: Recent
authors read and approved the final manuscript. solutions and major challenges. Sensors, 20(18), 5044.
19. H. Yang et al., (2023).ChirpKey: A Chirp-level Information-based
Funding The authors declare that no funds, grants, or other support Key Generation Scheme for LoRa Networks via Perturbed Com-
were received during the preparation of this manuscript. pressed Sensing. In proceedings of IEEE INFOCOM 2023–IEEE
Conference on Computer Communications, New York City,
(pp. 1–10).
Declarations 20. H. Yang et al., (2022).Vehicle-Key: A Secret Key Establishment
Scheme for LoRa-enabled IoV Communications. In proceedings
Conflict of interest The authors have no relevant financial or non-
financial interests to disclose.

123
 B. Shilpa et al.

of IEEE 42nd International Conference on Distributed Computing 39. Reynders, B., & Pollin, S. (2016). Chirp spread spectrum as a
Systems (ICDCS), Bologna (pp. 787–797). modulation technique for long-range communication. In Sympo-
21. Gao, J., Xu, W., Kanhere, S., Jha, S., Kim, J. Y., Huang, W., & sium on Communications and Vehicular Technologies (SCVT),
Hu, W. (2021). A novel model-based security scheme for LoRa (pp. 1–5).
key generation. In proceedings of the 20th International Confer- 40. Shilpa, B., Radha, R., & Movva, P. (2022). Comparative analysis
ence on Information Processing in Sensor Networks (IPSN ‘21), of wireless communication technologies for iot applications. In
Association for Computing Machinery, NY (pp. 47–61). Artificial Intelligence and Technologies, 806.
22. de Carvalho Silva, J., Rodrigues, J. J., Alberti, A. M., Solic, P., 41. Semtech Corporation, LoRa Modulation Basics," AN1200.22,
& Aquino, A. L. (2017, July). LoRaWAN—A low power WAN 2015.
protocol for Internet of Things: A review and opportunities. In 42. Tapparel, Joachim et al. (2020). An open-source LoRa physical
2017 2nd International multidisciplinary conference on computer layer prototype on GNU radio. In 2020 IEEE 21st International
and energy science (SpliTech) (pp. 1-6). IEEE. Workshop on Signal Processing Advances in Wireless Communi-
23. Marais, J. M., Malekian, R., & Abu-Mahfouz, A. M. (2017). cations (SPAWC) (pp1–5). IEEE.
LoRa and LoRaWAN testbeds: A review. IEEE Africon, 2017, 43. Semtech, N. S., Semtech, M. L., IBM, T. E., IBM, T. K., & Actility,
1496–1501. O. (2016). LoRaWAN specification. LoRa Alliance.
24. Lavric, A., & Popa, V. (2017). Internet of things and LoRa™ 44. LoRa Alliance. (2021). LoRaWAN for developers. [Online].
low-power wide-area networks: a survey. In 2017 International Available: https://loraalliance.org/lorawan-for-developers
Symposium on Signals, Circuits and Systems (ISSCS) (pp. 1-5). 45. Gamage, A., Liando, J. C., Gu, C., Tan, R., & Li, M. (2020).
IEEE. LMAC: Efficient carrier-sense multiple access for LoRa. In 26th
25. Haxhibeqiri, J., De Poorter, E., Moerman, I., & Hoebeke, J. Annual International Conference on Mobile Computing and Net-
(2018). A survey of LoRaWAN for IoT: From technology to appli- working, (pp. 1–13).
cation. Sensors, 18(11), 3995. 46. ETSI (2010). Machine-to-machine communications (m2m):
26. Saari, M., bin Baharudin, A. M., Sillberg, P., Hyrynsalmi, S., & Smart metering use cases. ETSI TR TR 102 691, 1.1.1, (2010–05).
Yan, W. (2018, May). LoRa—A survey of recent research trends. 47. Staniec, K., & Kowal, M. (2018). LoRa performance under
In 2018 41st international convention on information and commu- variable interference and heavy-multipath conditions. Wireless
nication technology, electronics and microelectronics (MIPRO) Communications and Mobile Computing, 2018(1), 6931083.
(pp. 0872-0877). IEEE. 48. Croce, D., Gucciardo, M., Mangione, S., Santaromita, G., &
27. Ertürk, M. A., Aydın, M. A., Büyükakkaşlar, M. T., & Evirgen, H. Tinnirello, I. (2018). Impact of LoRa imperfect orthogonality:
(2019). A survey on LoRaWAN architecture, protocol and tech- Analysis of link-level performance. IEEE Communications Let-
nologies. Future Internet, 11(10), 216. ters, 22(4), 796–799.
28. Alenezi, M., Chai, K. K., Chen, Y., & Jimaa, S. (2020). Ultra- 49. Elshabrawy, T., & Robert, J. (2018). Analysis of BER and cover-
dense LoRaWAN: Reviews and challenges. IET Communications, age performance of LoRa modulation under same spreading factor
14(9), 1361–1371. interference. In Proceedings of PIMRC (pp. 1–6). IEEE.
29. Noura, H., Hatoum, T., Salman, O., Yaacoub, J. P., & Chehab, A. 50. Afisiadis, O., Cotting, M., Burg, A., & Balatsoukas-Stimming,
(2020). LoRaWAN security survey: Issues, threats and possible A. (2020). On the error rate of the LoRa modulation with inter-
mitigation techniques. Internet of Things, 12, 100303. ference. IEEE Transactions on Wireless Communications, 19(2),
30. Cotrim, J. R., & Kleinschmidt, J. H. (2020). LoRaWAN mesh net- 1292–1304.
works: A review and classification of multihop communication. 51. Al Homssi, B., Dakic, K., Maselli, S., Wolf, H., Kandeepan, S.,
Sensors, 20(15), 4273. & AlHourani, A. (2021). IoT network design using open-source
31. Silva, J., Flor, D., de Junior, V. A., Bezerra, N., & Medeiros, A. LoRa coverage emulator. IEEE Access, 9, 53636–53646.
(2021). A survey of LoRaWAN simulation tools in ns-3. Journal 52. Afisiadis, O., Li, S., Tapparel, J., Burg, A., & Balatsoukas-
of Communication and Information Systems, 36(1), 17–30. Stimming, A. (2021). On the advantage of coherent LoRa
32. Gkotsiopoulos, P., Zorbas, D., & Douligeris, C. (2021). Perfor- detection in the presence of interference. IEEE Internet of Things
mance determinants in LoRa networks: A literature review. IEEE Journal, 8(14), 11581–11593.
Communications Surveys & Tutorials, 23(3), 1721–1758. 53. Kumari, P., Gupta, H. P., & Dutta, T. (2020). Estimation of time
33. Li, C., & Cao, Z. (2023). LoRa networking techniques for large- duration for using the allocated LoRa spreading factor: A game-
scale and long-term IoT: A down-to-top survey. ACM Computing theory approach. IEEE Transactions on Vehicular Technology,
Surveys, 55(3), 1–36. 69(10), 11090–11098.
34. Maurya, P., Singh, A., & Kherani, A. A. (2022). A review: Spread- 54. Kumari, P., Gupta, H. P., & Dutta, T. (2020). An incentive
ing factor allocation schemes for LoRaWAN. Telecommunication mechanism-based stackelberg game for scheduling of LoRa
Systems, 80, 449–468. spreading factors. IEEE Transactions on Network and Service
35. Sun, Z., Yang, H., Liu, K., Yin, Z., Li, Z., & Xu, W. (2022). Recent Management, 17(4), 2598–2609.
advances in LoRa: A comprehensive survey. ACM Transactions 55. Gao, W., Du, W., Zhao, Z., Min, G., & Singhal, M. (2019).
on Sensor Networks, 18(4), 1–44. Towards energy fairness in LoRa networks, In Proceedings of
36. Cheikh, I., Aouami, R., Sabir, E., Sadik, M., & Roy, S. (2022). IEEE ICDCS (pp. 788–798). IEEE.
Multi-layered energy efficiency in LoRa-WAN networks: A tuto- 56. Farhad, A., Kim, D. H., Kim, B. H., Mohammed, A. F. Y., &
rial. IEEE Access, 10, 9198–9231. Pyun, J. Y. (2020). Mobility-aware resource assignment to IoT
37. Ayoub Kamal, M., Alam, M. M., Sajak, A. A. B., & Mohd Su’ud, applications in long-range wide area networks. IEEE Access, 8,
M. (2023). Requirements, deployments, and challenges of LoRa 186111–186124.
technology: A survey. Computational Intelligence and Neuro- 57. Xu, Z., Tong, S., Xie, P., & Wang, J. (2020). FlipLoRa: Resolving
science, 2023(1), 1–5. collisions with up-down quasi-orthogonality. In 2020 17th Annual
38. Jouhari, Mohammed et al. (2022). A Survey on scalable IEEE International Conference on Sensing, Communication, and
LoRaWAN for massive IoT: Recent advances, potentials, and Networking (SECON) (pp. 1-9). IEEE.
challenges. ArXiv abs/2202.11082 58. Tong, S., Wang, J., & Liu, Y. (2022). Combating packet colli-
sions using non-stationary signal scaling in LPWANs. IEEE/ACM
Transactions on Networking, 30(3), 1104–1117.

123
LoRa interference issues and solution approaches in dense IoT …

59. Hu, B., Yin, Z., Wang, S., Xu, Z., & He, T. (2020). SCLoRa: Lever- 77. Tapparel, J., Xhonneux, M., Bol, D., Louveaux, J., & Burg, A.
aging multi-dimensionality in decoding collided LoRa transmis- (2021). Enhancing the reliability of dense LoRaWAN networks
sions. In 2020 IEEE 28th International Conference on Network with multi-user receivers. IEEE Open Journal of the Communi-
Protocols (ICNP) (pp. 1-11). IEEE. cations Society, 2, 2725–2738.
60. Temim, M. A. B., Ferré, G., Laporte-Fauret, B., Dallet, D., Minger, 78. Guo, Q., Yang, F., & Wei, J. (2021). Experimental evaluation of
B., & Fuché, L. (2020). An enhanced receiver to decode super- the packet reception performance of LoRa. Sensors (Switzerland),
posed LoRa-like signals. In IEEE Internet of Things Journal, 7(8), 21, 1–23.
7419–7431. 79. Xia, X., Zheng, Y., & Gu, T. (2020). FTrack: Parallel decoding
61. Benkahla, N., Tounsi, H., Ye-Qiong, S., & Frikha, M. (2019). for LoRa transmissions. IEEE/ACM Transactions on Networking,
Enhanced ADR for LoRaWAN networks with mobility. In 2019 28(6), 2573–2586.
15th International Wireless Communications Mobile Computing 80. Croce, D., Gucciardo, M., Mangione, S., Santaromita, G., &
Conference (IWCMC) (pp. 1–6). IEEE. Tinnirello, I. (2020). LoRa technology demystified: From link
62. Laporte-Fauret, B., Temim, M. A. B., Ferre, G., Dallet, D., Minger, behavior to cell-level performance. IEEE Transactions on Wire-
B., & Fuch´e, L. (2019). An enhanced LoRa-like receiver for the less Communications, 19(2), 822–834.
simultaneous reception of two interfering signals. In Proceedings 81. Amichi, L., Kaneko, M., Rachkidy, N. E., & Guitton, A. (2019).
of PIMRC (pp.1–6). IEEE. Spreading factor allocation strategy for LoRa networks under
63. Rachkidy, N. E., Guitton, A., & Kaneko, M. (2018). Decoding imperfect orthogonality. In 2019 Proceedings of ICC (pp. 1–7).
superposed LoRa signals. In Proceedings of LCN (pp. 184–190). IEEE.
IEEE. 82. Beltramelli, L., Mahmood, A., Gidlund, M., Österberg, P., & Jen-
64. Noreen, U., Clavier, L., & Bounceur, A. (2018). LoRa-like nehag, U. (2018, October). Interference modelling in a multi-cell
CSS-based PHY layer, Capture Effect and Serial Interference LoRa system. In 2018 14th International Conference on Wire-
Cancellation. In European Wireless 2018; 24th European Wireless less and Mobile Computing, Networking and Communications
Conference (pp. 1–6). (WiMob) (pp. 1-8). IEEE.
65. Georgiou, O., & Raza, U. (2017). Low power wide area network 83. Reynders, B., Meert, W., & Pollin, S. (2017). Power and spreading
analysis: Can LoRa scale? IEEE Wireless Communications Let- factor control in low power wide area networks. In 2017 IEEE
ters, 6(2), 162–165. International Conference on Communications (ICC) (pp. 1-6).
66. Chen, Q., & Wang, J. (2021). AlignTrack: Push the limit of LoRa IEEE.
collision decoding. In 2021 IEEE 29th International Conference 84. Van den Abeele, F., Haxhibeqiri, J., Moerman, I., & Hoebeke, J.
on Network Protocols (ICNP) (pp. 1-11). IEEE. (2017). Scalability analysis of large-scale LoRaWAN networks in
67. Fawaz, H., Khawam, K., Lahoud, S., Martin, S., & Helou, M. E. ns-3. IEEE Internet of Things Journal, 4(6), 2186–2198.
(2021). Cooperation for spreading factor assignment in a mul- 85. Bankov, D., Khorov, E., & Lyakhov, A. (2017). Mathematical
tioperator LoRaWAN deployment. In IEEE Internet of Things model of LoRaWAN channel access with capture effect. In 2017
Journal, 8(7), 5544–5557. IEEE 28th Annual International Symposium on Personal, Indoor,
68. Xu, Z., Xie, P., & Wang, J. (2021). Pyramid: Real-time lora colli- and Mobile Radio communications (PIMRC) (pp. 1-5). IEEE.
sion decoding with peak tracking. In IEEE INFOCOM 2021-IEEE 86. Edward, P., El-Aasser, M., Ashour, M., & Elshabrawy, T. (2021).
Conference on Computer Communications (pp. 1-9). IEEE. Interleaved chirp spreading LoRa as a parallel network to enhance
69. Shahid, M. O., Philipose, M., Chintalapudi, K., Banerjee, S., & LoRa capacity. IEEE Internet of Things Journal, 8(5), 3864–3874.
Krishnaswamy, B. (2021). Concurrent interference cancellation: 87. Marquez, L. E., Osorio, A., Calle, M., Velez, J. C., Serrano, A.,
Decoding multi-packet collisions in LoRa. In Proceedings of the & Candelo-Becerra, J. E. (2020). On the use of LoRaWAN in
2021 ACM SIGCOMM 2021 Conference (pp. 503-515). smart cities: A study with blocking interference. IEEE Internet of
70. Abdelfadeel, K. Q., Zorbas, D., Cionca, V., & Pesch, D. (2020). Things Journal, 7(4), 2806–2815.
FREE—Fine-grained scheduling for reliable and energy-efficient 88. Wang, Z., Kong, L., Xu, K., He, L., Wu, K., & Chen, G. (2020,
data collection in LoRaWAN. IEEE Internet of Things Journal, July). Online concurrent transmissions at LoRa gateway. In IEEE
7(1), 669–683. INFOCOM 2020-IEEE Conference on Computer Communica-
71. Tong, S., Xu, Z., & Wang, J. (2020). CoLoRa: Enabling multi- tions (pp. 2331-2340). IEEE.
packet reception in LoRa. In Proceedings of IEEE INFOCOM 89. Rahmadhani, A., & Kuipers, F. (2018). When loRaWAN frames
(pp. 2303–2311). IEEE. collide. In Proceedings of the 12th International Workshop on
72. Wang, X., Kong, L., He, L. & Chen, G. (2019). mLoRa: A multi- Wireless Network Testbeds, Experimental Evaluation & Charac-
packet reception protocol in LoRa networks. In 2019 IEEE 27th terization (pp. 89-97).
International Conference on Network Protocols (ICNP), Chicago, 90. Reynders, B., Wang, Q., Tuset-Peiro, P., Vilajosana, X., & Pollin,
(pp. 1–11). S. (2018). Improving reliability and scalability of LoRaWANs
73. Korbi, I. E., Ghamri-Doudane, Y., & Saidane, L. A. (2018) through lightweight scheduling. IEEE Internet of Things Journal,
LoRaWAN analysis under unsaturated traffic, orthogonal and non- 5(3), 1830–1842.
orthogonal spreading factor conditions. In Proceedings of NCA, 91. Orfanidis, C., Feeney, L. M., Jacobsson, M., & Gunningberg, P.
2018, (pp. 1–9). IEEE. (2017, October). Investigating interference between LoRa and
74. Cuomo, F., Campo, M., Caponi, A., Bianchi, G., Rossini, G. & IEEE 802.15. 4g networks. In 2017 IEEE 13th International
Pisani, P. (2017). EXPLoRa: Extending the performance of LoRa Conference on Wireless and Mobile Computing, Networking and
by suitable spreadinfactor allocations. In Proceedings of WiMob Communications (WiMob) (pp. 1-8). IEEE.
(pp. 1–8). IEEE. 92. Voigt, T., Bor, M., Roedig, U., & Alonso, J. (2017). Mitigating
75. Benkhelifa, F., Qin, Z., & McCann, J. A. (2021). User fair- inter-network interference in LoRa Networks. In proceedings of
ness in energy harvesting-based LoRa networks with imperfect International Conference on Embedded Wireless Systems and Net-
SF orthogonality. IEEE Transactions on Communications, 69(7), works (EWSN ‘17) (pp. 323–328).
4319–4334. 93. Lim, J. T., & Han, Y. (2018). Spreading factor allocation for
76. Garlisi, D., Mangione, S., Giuliano, F., Croce, D., Garbo, G., & massive connectivity in LoRa systems. IEEE Communications
Tinnirello, I. (2021). Interference cancellation for LoRa gateways Letters, 22, 800–803.
and impact on network capacity. IEEE Access, 9, 128133–128146.

123
 B. Shilpa et al.

94. Shilpa, B., Kumar, P. R., Jha, R. K. (2023) Spreading factor 110. Lumet, E., Le Floch, A., Kacimi, R., Lihoreau, M., & Beylot, A.
optimization for interference mitigation in dense indoor LoRa net- L. (2021). LoRaWAN relaying: Push the cell boundaries. In Pro-
works. IEEE IAS Global Conference on Emerging Technologies ceedings of the 24th International ACM Conference on Modeling,
(GlobConET) (pp. 1–5). Analysis and Simulation of Wireless and Mobile Systems MSWiM
95. Shilpa, B., Kumar, P. R., & Jha, R. K. (2023). LoRa DL: A (pp. 217-220).
deep learning model for enhancing the data transmission over 111. Edward, P., Elzeiny, S., Ashour, M., & Elshabrawy, T. (2019,
LoRa using autoencoder. The Journal of Supercomputing, 79, October). On the coexistence of LoRa-and interleaved chirp
17079–17097. spreading LoRa-based modulations. In 2019 International Con-
96. Garlisi, D., Tinnirello, I., Bianchi, G., & Cuomo, F. (2021). ference on Wireless and Mobile Computing, Networking and
Capture aware sequential waterfilling for LoRaWAN adaptive Communications (WiMob) (pp. 1-6). IEEE.
data rate. IEEE Transactions on Wireless Communications, 20, 112. Lauridsen, M., Vejlgaard, B., Kovacs, I. Z., Nguyen, H., &
2019–2033. Mogensen, P. (2017, March). Interference measurements in the
97. Bapathu, H. R., & Borkotoky, S. S. (2021). The LoRa modulation European 868 MHz ISM band with focus on LoRa and SigFox.
over rapidly-varying channels: Are the higher spreading factors In 2017 IEEE Wireless Communications and Networking Confer-
necessarily more robust?. In 2021 IEEE 18th Annual Consumer ence (WCNC) (pp. 1-6). IEEE.
Communications and Networking Conference, CCNC, Institute of 113. Sun, K., Yin, Z., Chen, W., Wang, S., Zhang, Z., & He, T. (2021,
Electrical and Electronics Engineers Inc. (pp. 1–4). IEEE. November). Partial symbol recovery for interference resilience in
98. Coutaud, U., Heusse, M., & Tourancheau, B. (2021). LoRa chan- low-power wide area networks. In 2021 IEEE 29th International
nel characterization for flexible and high reliability adaptive data Conference on Network Protocols (ICNP) (pp. 1-11). IEEE.
rate in multiple gateways networks. Computers, 10(4), 44. 114. Xu, Q., Sun, K., Wang, S., Chen, P., & Yin, Z. (2023, Octo-
99. Ni, M., Jafarizadeh, M., & Zheng, R. (2019). On the effect of ber). SLoRa: A Systematic framework for synergic interference
multi-packet reception on redundant gateways in LoRAWANs. In resilience in LPWAN. In 2023 IEEE 31st International Confer-
Proceedings of ICC (pp. 1–6). IEEE. ence on Network Protocols (ICNP) (pp. 1-11). IEEE.
100. Tesfay, A. A., SIMON, E. P., Ferre, G., & Clavier, L. (2020). 115. Hou, N., Xia, X., & Zheng, Y. (2021). Jamming of LoRa PHY
Serial interference cancellation for improving uplink in LoRa-like and countermeasure. IEEE INFOCOM 2021-IEEE Conference
networks. In 2020 IEEE 31st Annual International Symposium on on Computer Communications (pp. 1–10).
Personal, Indoor and Mobile Radio Communications (pp. 1–6, 116. Aras, E., Small, N., Ramachandran, G. S., Delbruel, S., Joosen,
2020). IEEE. W., & Hughes, D. (2017). Selective jamming of LoRaWAN
101. Tesfay, A. A., Simon, E. P., Nevat, I., & Clavier, L. (2020). using commodity hardware. In Proceedings of the 14th EAI
Multiuser detection for downlink communication in lora-like net- International Conference on Mobile and Ubiquitous Systems:
works. IEEE Access, 8, 199001–199015. Computing, Networking and Services (pp. 363-372).
102. Temim, M. A. B., Ferre, G., Tajan, R. & Laporte-Fauret, B. 117. Huang, C. Y., Lin, C. W., Cheng, R. G., Yang, S. J., & Sheu,
(2020). A novel approach to process the multiple reception of S. T. (2019, April). Experimental evaluation of jamming threat in
non-orthogonal LoRaLike signals. In ICC 2020-2020 IEEE Inter- LoRaWAN. In 2019 IEEE 89th Vehicular Technology Conference
national Conference on Communications (ICC) (pp. 1–6). IEEE. (VTC2019-Spring) (pp. 1-6). IEEE.
103. Amichi, L., Kaneko, M., Fukuda, E. H., El Rachkidy, N., & Guit- 118. Martinez, I., Tanguy, P., & Nouvel, F. (2019, September). On the
ton, A. (2020). Joint allocation strategies of power and spreading performance evaluation of LoRaWAN under Jamming. In 2019
factors with imperfect orthogonality in LoRa networks. IEEE 12th IFIP Wireless and Mobile Networking Conference (WMNC)
Transactions on Communications, 68(6), 3750–3765. (pp. 141-145). IEEE.
104. Zhu, G., Liao, C. H., Suzuki, M., Narusue, Y., & Morikawa, 119. Martinez, I., Nouvel, F., Lahoud, S., Tanguy, P., & El Helou, M.
H. (2018). Evaluation of LoRa receiver performance under co- (2020, July). On the performance evaluation of LoRaWAN with
technology interference. In 2018 15th IEEE Annual Consumer re-transmissions under jamming. In 2020 IEEE Symposium on
Communications & Networking Conference (CCNC) (pp. 1-7). Computers and Communications (ISCC) (pp. 1-7). IEEE.
IEEE.
105. Markkula, J., Mikhaylov, K., & Haapola, J. (2019). Simulating
LoRaWAN: On importance of inter spreading factor interference
Publisher’s Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to juris-
and collision effect. In ICC 2019-2019 IEEE International Con-
dictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
ference on Communications (ICC) (pp. 1-7). IEEE.
106. Waret, A., Kaneko, M., Guitton, A., & El Rachkidy, N. (2019).
Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds
LoRa throughput analysis with imperfect spreading factor orthog-
exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the
onality. IEEE Wireless Communications Letters, 8(2), 408–411.
author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted
107. Mahmood, A., Sisinni, E., Guntupalli, L., Rondón, R., Hassan, S.
manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such
A., & Gidlund, M. (2019). scalability analysis of a LoRa network
publishing agreement and applicable law.
under imperfect orthogonality. IEEE Transactions on Industrial
Informatics, 15(3), 1425–1436.
108. Qadir, Q. M. (2021). Analysis of the reliability of LoRa. IEEE
Communications Letters, 25(3), 1037–1040.
109. Bankov, D., Khorov, E., & Lyakhov, A. (2017). Mathematical
model of LoRaWAN channel access. In 2017 IEEE 18th Interna-
tional symposium on A World of Wireless, Mobile and Multimedia
Networks (WoWMoM) (pp. 1-5). IEEE.

123
LoRa interference issues and solution approaches in dense IoT …

B. Shilpa is an assistant professor Rajesh Kumar Jha is an assis-

in the Department of Computer tant professor in the Department
Science and Engineering, AVN of Electronics and Communi-
Institute of Engineering & Tech- cation Engineering, Faculty of
nology, Hyderabad, India. She Science and Technology, IFHE,
received her PhD degree in wire- Hyderabad, India. He received
less communication from Faculty his Ph.D. degree in electronics
of Science and Technology, IFHE and communication engineering
University in 2024. Her areas of from IIIT Allahabad in 2020. His
interest are wireless communi- research interests include very
cation, wireless sensor networks, largescale integration and the
IoT and deep learning. Internet of Things.

Hari Prabhat Gupta is an assis- Syed Shakeel Hashmi is an assis-

tant professor in the Department tant professor in the Department
of Computer Science and Engi- of Electronics and Communi-
neering, Indian Institute of Tech- cation Engineering, Faculty of
nology (BHU), Varanasi, India. Science and Technology, IFHE,
He received his Ph.D. degree in Hyderabad, India. He received
computer science and engineering his PhD from JNTUA, Anantapur
from IIT Guwahati in 2014. His in 2021. His areas of interest
research interests include wireless are Wireless Communication,
sensor networks, distributed algo- Heterogeneous wireless networks
rithms, and the Internet of Things. and signal Processing.

123

View publication stats