Types of Site Surveys
Among network
engineers, RF knowledge has been something that is typically not understood
deeply. As WLANs have evolved, there has been a push to simplify deployment,
making it easier for non-RF engineers to install and manage an RF WLAN network.
Part of this push has been in deployment tools, or site survey tools. Today
there are three general categories for such tools, as described in the following
sections:
-
Manual
-
Automated and assisted
-
Theoretical
Manual
The manual site survey has been the main method for determining
how to deploy a WLAN. This type of survey requires physically being at the
location and taking actual RF readings throughout the site. Using logical
methods for working through the site, an AP is placed in the site with the
associated antenna, and a physical walkabout is performed.
This type of survey is by far the most accurate because it
provides real data transfer in a live environment in a manner similar to that of
the actual WLAN user. The survey engineer moves from location to location
(within the site) and takes readings to verify RF connectivity.
The downside to a manual survey is the time required to walk
the site, move APs from place to place, and verify the coverage. In addition,
understanding the results of the survey requires a high level of RF
knowledge.
Automated
In an attempt to make installing WLANs easier (and more
attractive to those with little or no RF knowledge), the concept of eliminating
the necessity for a site survey altogether is being promoted heavily. In an
ideal situation, a network engineer could walk into a site, drop APs in the site
based strictly on location and density of users, and have the network
"self-configure." A great idea, but automated site surveys require some on-site
survey work to prevent either putting in too many APs (and increasing the
overall system cost) or leaving holes in the RF coverage.
Some automated survey vendors claim that APs that must be
located (in the site) and configured manually are bad. Instead, some management
system could identify the requirement for RF coverage. And after the APs have
been physically installed, this system could then configure the APs to provide
the desired coverage.
But, one question continues be raised to those who have
looked at this concept in depth: Where do I physically place the APs, and what
antennas should I use? The concept for the automated survey is that you just
place APs wherever it makes sense to achieve the type of coverage
desiredcoverage based on performance, high availability, resilience, and so
onand standardize on one simple antenna. In some cases (such as the "coffee cup"
survey discussed in Chapter 8,
"Discovering Site-Specific Requirements"), this might work just fine. For many
types of sites, however, it will not work efficiently or economically.
Consider a warehouse or factory floor where there are certain
types of obstacles impeding the RF coverage paths. Directional antennas and
critical placement of APs is a requirement. The automated site surveys are not
intended to work for these types of installations.
Consider also that sites that need a maximum coverage area but
not necessarily maximum bandwidth, such as for data acquisition, RFID, or bar
code scanning, present problems for an automated site survey. One common thread
is needed for automated site surveys: user density. One vendor describes it as
overengineering, or placing more APs than needed
in the site. The WLAN management station can just turn down the power of the APs
to achieve the required overlapping coverage. If the goal is to have maximum
coverage, this method is not economical and can elevate the cost of the WLAN as
much as double or triple the actual requirement. The argument here is that the
cost of WLAN gear is less than hiring a wireless solution provider to perform a
manual survey.
Another downside to most automated survey systems is that there
is no feedback from the client. The system uses RF signal information received
by APs, from the surrounding APs, to determine what the power levels should be
set to. It does not provide a guarantee that there are no dead spots in certain
areas, especially along the perimeter of the site, where there may not be
another AP there to evaluate the RF levels.
One possible advantage to a system that offers automated
surveys is that it provides some ability to reconfigure the RF if the
environment changes. If walls are added, new equipment is brought into the
factory, or inventory type changes for a certain location, the system might be
able to compensate for these changes. However, this can happen only if the APs
were installed properly in the first place and the APs are not currently running
at full power.
Assisted
Assisted site surveys are a mix between a totally manual survey
and a totally automated survey. Assisted site surveys take advantage of the best
features from both. However, in doing so, you still have some of the downsides
from both methods as well. Some manual surveying is still required, and some
minimal RF knowledge of antennas and RF propagation is needed for the
initial design. In addition, assisted site surveys are not suited for some sites
due to lower RF coverage and the resulting higher cost of systems installed
using automated or assisted survey methods.
The concept here is to take a manual survey process and
determine optimum coverage in the site for each different type of area. The
engineer takes manual measurements in selected areas and then logically extends
those results to the remainder of the site. Then a configuration system is used
to test and make preliminary adjustments of the APs. Finally a walkabout is done
with a client that will work in conjunction with the configuration system,
passing data to the configuration system on overall link performance, so that
the configuration system can make final changes to the APs configuration.
Although this method comes closer to manual survey results, in
most cases it will still result in somewhat more APs than a totally manual
survey will, because part of the facility will be overengineered to guarantee
coverage. The final walkabout is done to ensure no dead spots.
The assisted survey only works in areas where the user density
or application bandwidth requires the AP's coverage area be lower than the
maximum capability of the AP and the areas to be covered are somewhat
uniform.
Theoretical Surveys
A few companies have developed tools that provide theoretical
RF coverage plans for WLANs. For the most part, these tools are intended to
remove the necessity for walkabout surveys.
To use a theoretical tool, input such as an aerial photo or
scaled or scanned drawing of the site is required. Some permit the inputting of
standard graphic files such as BMPs or AutoCAD drawings, whereas others might
require the user to actually draw the facility in the supplied software package.
The site needs to have a description of the construction and contents, as well
as the attenuation factors entered into the system, and specifics about the
radios and antennas that are going to be used.
From there the tool enables the design engineer to
interactively place APs with a click of the mouse, and the system will determine
theoretical RF patterns for the site. The resulting coverage and capacity can
then be viewed in a graphical representation.
Most of these tools have already loaded the specifications for
the more popular WLAN products, as well as a large assortment of antenna
specifications. If the antenna and radio specification are not provided,
however, this can be a big issue. Antenna polar plots are not easily obtained,
and certain characteristics for radios can be difficult for non-RF engineers to
understand.
These types of tools also usually offer features that keep
complete and easy-to-use records of all technical and maintenance details for
each job. Because most indoor and campus networks involve hidden APs and wiring
that are not easy to find and can be lost over time, these graphical model
documents can prove very useful for troubleshooting. This is a great aid in the
final documentation stage (as discussed in Chapter 13, "Preparing the Proper Documentation").
Although these
types of tools actually do work fairly well, they come with a drawback: higher
overall cost. First is the initial purchase price of the tool; they tend to be
very very expensive. And second, you need to input every piece of the site into
the map (including building-wall construction and contents, and attenuation
factor assignations for every piece). An experienced survey engineer can usually
perform the survey in less time than it takes to import every detail, run the
program, and then perform the walkabout verification.
Although these tools make accurate modeling of the site
propagation, link budgeting, and modeling of the RF performance a closer
reality, successful completion of these tasks is more than just a simple click
of the mouse away. They come at a cost, both in dollars and time. And nearly all
the theoretical tools recommend some type of final field walkabout to verify the
installation.