Submitted:
27 April 2026
Posted:
28 April 2026
You are already at the latest version
Abstract
Keywords:
1. Introduction and Background
- Lack of controlled empirical validation across all three Wi-Fi bands under identical conditions.
- Insufficient explanation of propagation-induced anomalies in RSS and throughput behaviour,
- Over-reliance on simplified propagation models without evaluating their validity in modern indoor deployments.
1.1. Research Challenges and Study Contribution
1.1.1. Research Questions and Challenges
- 1.
-
What limits the achievable indoor throughput of Wi-Fi 7 across three frequency bands?Wi-Fi 7 simultaneously utilises frequency bands that differ markedly in their propagation behaviour. A central challenge is understanding how indoor phenomena, such as signal attenuation with distance, material penetration, and spatial deployment geometry, constrain throughput in each band. The relationship between raw physical-layer capability and realised application-layer performance is non-trivial, particularly when higher-frequency links offer greater capacity but reduced tolerance to environmental loss. Identifying where and why throughput collapses under realistic indoor conditions remains an unresolved problem.
- 2.
-
What mechanisms drive performance degradation when line-of-sight is impaired or external interference is present?Indoor wireless links rarely operate under ideal visibility or isolation. Obstructions introduced by building layouts, coupled with interference from everyday electronic appliances, produce complex channel conditions that are difficult to characterise analytically. A key challenge lies in separating the effects of geometric blockage, multipath fading, and interference-induced noise to determine which mechanisms dominate link degradation in practice. Without this understanding, predicting Wi-Fi 7 reliability in operational environments remains highly uncertain.
- 3.
-
What analytical propagation models remain valid for contemporary Wi-Fi 7 indoor deployments?Propagation models commonly used in WLAN design were largely developed for earlier standards and lower operating frequencies. Their continued relevance for Wi-Fi7, particularly in multi-storey indoor environments, is unclear. Simplifying assumptions regarding line-of-sight availability, reflection behaviour, and signal variance may no longer hold as frequency increases and deployment scenarios become more complex. A critical challenge is determining which modelling approaches retain predictive value when confronted with empirical Wi-Fi 7 measurements, and where model assumptions begin to diverge from observed behaviour.
1.1.2. Study Contributions
- 1.
- We examine the effect of indoor propagation environments on Wi-Fi 7 link throughput. To this end, we conducted an extensive radio propagation measurements (field experiment) using Wi-Fi 7 cards and access points in the University multi-story building.
- 2.
- We investigated the effect of increasing distance, line-of-sight obstruction, wall separation, floors, antenna orientation, and microwave interference on system performance.
- 3.
- We explore the effect of Wi-Fi 7 tri-band (2.4-, 5-, and 6 GHz) on system performance. To this end, we measure the link throughput and RSS values for all six scenarios mentioned above for comparative analysis.
- 4.
- We investigate the theoretical propagation models that best fit the measured performance. To achieve this, we compare the RSS measured values with each of the four models (Free-space, Two-Ray Ground, Shadowing, Path Loss, and overall Shadowing Model) considered in the study.
2. Related Work
3. PHY/MAC Configuration and Experimental Parameters
| Parameter | Configuration |
|---|---|
| Standard | IEEE 802.11be (Wi-Fi 7) |
| Channel Bandwidth | 80 MHz (2.4/5 GHz), 160 MHz (6 GHz) |
| Modulation (MCS) | Adaptive (auto-rate) |
| Spatial Streams | 2 × 2 MIMO |
| Guard Interval | 0.8 s |
| Multi-Link Operation (MLO) | Disabled (single-link operation) |
| Traffic Type | TCP (SMB file transfer) |
| Payload Size | 1.17 GB file transfer |
| Operating Mode | Infrastructure (AP–Client) |
3.1. Measurement testbed and resources used
3.2. Propagation Model Formulation
3.2.1. Free-Space Model
3.2.2. Two-Ray Ground Reflection Model
3.2.3. Log-Distance Shadowing Model
- is a reference distance,
- n denotes the path loss exponent,
- is a zero-mean Gaussian random variable with standard deviation .
3.3. Model Evaluation Metric
3.4. Experimental Scope Alignment
4. Results and Analysis
4.1. Observed Sensitivity to Device Orientation
4.2. Microwave Interference Characterisation
4.3. Impact of Wall-Induced Attenuation
4.4. Distance-Driven Throughput Study
4.5. Impact of Line-of-Sight Disruption
- 2 m deviation represents partial obstruction within corridor boundaries,
- 5 m deviation represents complete obstruction involving structural walls.
4.6. Vertical Separation and Floor Penetration Effect
4.7. Significance of High-Frequency Operation (6 GHz)
4.8. Interpretation of RSS Variability Across Wall Scenarios
5. Indoor Propagation Modelling Framework
5.1. Limitations of Two-Ray Model and adopted models
- Close-In (CI) Model: Uses a reference distance of 1 m and captures realistic attenuation trends.
- Log-Distance Shadowing Model: Accounts for environmental variability through path-loss exponent adjustment.
- Multi-Wall/Floor (MWF) Model: Incorporates attenuation due to structural elements.
5.2. Best-Fit Between Measured Data and Propagation Models
6. System Validation and Implications

6.1. Results Accuracy and Validation
6.2. Practical Implications
7. Conclusions
Acknowledgments
References
- Sarkar, N.I.; Mussa, O.; Gul, S. Impact of People’s Movement on Wi-Fi Link Throughput in Indoor Propagation Environments: An Empirical Study. Electronics 2021, 10, 856. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Soto, P.; Camelo, M.; Mets, K.; Wilhelmi, F.; Góez, D.; Fletscher, L.A.; Gaviria, N.; Hellinckx, P.; Botero, J.F.; Latré, S. ATARI: A Graph Convolutional Neural Network Approach for Performance Prediction in Next-Generation WLANs. Sensors 2021, 21, 4321. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Bartolín-Arnau, L.M.; Orozco-Santos, F.; Sempere-Payá, V.; Silvestre-Blanes, J.; Albero-Albero, T.; Llacer-Garcia, D. Exploring the Potential of Wi-Fi in Industrial Environments: A Comparative Performance Analysis of IEEE 802.11 Standards. Telecom 2025, 6, 40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Adame, T.; Carrascosa-Zamacois, M.; Bellalta, B. Time-Sensitive Networking in IEEE 802.11be: On the Way to Low-Latency WiFi 7. Sensors 2021, 21, 4954. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Mozaffariahrar, E.; Theoleyre, F.; Menth, M. A Survey of Wi-Fi 6: Technologies, Advances, and Challenges. Future Internet 2022, 14, 293. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Joubert, P.J.; Helberg, A.S.J. An Investigation into the Use of Kriging for Wi-Fi RSSI Estimation in Complex Indoor Environments. In Proceedings of the Proc. IEEE Wireless Communications and Networking Conference (WCNC), 2015; pp. 1326–1331. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pandey, P.; Parasuraman, R. Empirical Analysis of Bi-directional Wi-Fi Network Performance on Mobile Robots in Indoor Environments. In Proceedings of the Proc. IEEE 95th Vehicular Technology Conference (VTC2022-Spring), 2022. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Avallone, S.; Imputato, P. Understanding the New Enhanced Multi-Link Single Radio Feature of IEEE 802.11be WLANs. IEEE J. Sel. Areas Commun. 2025, 43, 3683–3694. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wu, J.; Fang, X.; Min, G. Deep Reinforcement Learning Based Multi-Link Frame Aggregation Length Optimization in Next Generation Wi-Fi Networks. IEEE Trans. Wirel. Commun. 2024, 23, 14482–14497. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dogan-Tusha, S.; Tusha, A.; Nasiri, H.; Rochman, M.I.; Helzerman, J.; Ghosh, M. Evaluating The Interference Potential in 6 GHz: An Extensive Measurement Campaign of A Dense Indoor Wi-Fi 6E Network. In Proceedings of the Proceedings of the 17th ACM Workshop on Wireless Network Testbeds, Experimental Evaluation & Characterization (WiNTECH ’23), 2023. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Deshmukh, M.; Kamel, M.; Lin, Z.; Yang, R.; Lou, H.; Guvenc, I. Intelligent Feedback Overhead Reduction (iFOR) in Wi-Fi 7 and Beyond. In Proceedings of the 2022 IEEE 95th Vehicular Technology Conference (VTC2022-Spring), 2022. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yu, Y.; Chen, R.; Liu, Z.; Guo, G.; Ye, F.; Chen, L. Wi-Fi Fine Time Measurement: Data Analysis and Processing for Indoor Localisation. J. Navig. 2020, 73, 1106–1128. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Martínez del Horno, M.; García-Varea, I.; Orozco Barbosa, L. Calibration of Wi-Fi-Based Indoor Tracking Systems for Android-Based Smartphones. Remote Sens. 2019, 11, 1072. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Qiao, J.; Yang, F.; Liu, J.; Huang, G.; Zhang, W.; Li, M. Advancements in Indoor Precision Positioning: A Comprehensive Survey of UWB and Wi-Fi RTT Positioning Technologies. Network 2024, 4, 545–566. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kobir, M.I.; Machado, P.; Lotfi, A.; Haider, D.; Ihianle, I. Enhancing Multi-User Activity Recognition with Wi-Fi CSI and Transformer Architectures. Sensors 2025, 25, 3955. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Bartolín-Arnau, L.M.; Orozco-Santos, F.; Sempere-Payá, V.; Silvestre-Blanes, J. Exploring the Potential of Wi-Fi in Industrial Environments: A Comparative Performance Analysis. Telecom 2025, 6, 40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rizk, H.; Elmogy, A. SelfLoc: Robust Self-Supervised Indoor Localization with IEEE 802.11az Wi-Fi. Electronics 2025, 14, 2675. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dai, J.; Wang, M.; Wu, B.; Shen, J.; Wang, X. A Survey of Latest Wi-Fi Assisted Indoor Positioning on Different Principles. Sensors 2023, 23, 7961. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Chia, Z.Y.; Goh, P.Y.; Ong, L.Y.; Tan, S.C. The Challenge of Dynamic Environments in RSSI-Based Indoor Wi-Fi Positioning. Future Internet 2025, 17, 540. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhang, Z.; Yu, Y.; Chen, L.; Chen, R. Hybrid Indoor Positioning System Based on Acoustic Ranging and Wi-Fi Fingerprinting. Remote Sens. 2023, 15, 3520. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tian, L.P.; Yu, C.M.; Wang, L.C.; Chen, Z. AI-Driven Decimeter-Level Indoor Localization Using Single-Link Wi-Fi. Sensors 2026, 26, 642. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- IEEE. IEEE P802.11be/D1.0 Draft Standard for Information Technology—Telecommunications and Information Exchange between Systems Local and Metropolitan Area Networks—Part 11: Wireless LAN Medium Access Control (MAC) and Physical Layer (PHY) Specifications—Amendment 8: Enhancements for Extremely High Throughput (EHT). 2021. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]





| Ref. | Problem | Approach | Testbed | 802.11be | RSS M/M | Focus |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| [3] | Industrial WLAN reliability | Multi-env. evaluation (802.11n–be) | (Y) | (N) | (Y) | RTT/QoS |
| [6] | RSSI spatial estimation | Kriging interpolation | (Y) | (N) | (N) | Coverage |
| [7] | Mobility impact | ROS-based measurements | (Y) | (N) | (Y) | Throughput |
| [8] | Multi-link behaviour | Protocol analysis (802.11be) | (N) | (Y) | (Y) | Latency |
| [9] | Link aggregation control | DRL-based optimisation | (N) | (Y) | (Y) | Goodput |
| [10] | 6 GHz interference | Dense measurement campaign | (Y) | (N) | (N) | Interference |
| [11] | Feedback overhead | K-means compression | (N) | (Y) | (Y) | Efficiency |
| – | This work | 802.11be Wi-Fi 7 in Complex Indoor Environments | (Y) | (Y) | (Y) | Integrated |
| Band (GHz) |
Throughput (Microwave Off) |
Throughput (Microwave On) |
Throughput Drop(%) |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2.4 | 3.12 | 1.48 | 52.6 |
| 5 | 8.44 | 6.37 | 24.5 |
| 6 | 12.03 | 10.92 | 9.2 |
| Band (GHz) | Throughput at 5 m (Mbps) |
Throughput at 25 m (Mbps) |
Throughput Drop (%) |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2.4 | 7.79 | 7.56 | 2.95 |
| 5 | 38.27 | 37.15 | 2.93 |
| 6 | 70.42 | 41.82 | 40.61 |
| Band | RSS LoS | RSS Obs. | Thrpt | Thrpt. Drop | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| (GHz) | (dBm) | (dBm) | (Mbps) | (%) | |
| Trial 1: 25 m (Baseline) | |||||
| 2.4 | -55 | – | 7.56 | 0 | |
| 5 | -46 | – | 37.15 | 0 | |
| 6 | -44 | – | 41.82 | 0 | |
| Trial 2: 25 + 2m LoS deviation | |||||
| 2.4 | – | -73 | 0.43 | 94.3 | |
| 5 | – | -77 | 4.76 | 87.2 | |
| 6 | – | Connection-Lost | 0 | 100 | |
| Trial 3: 25 m + 5m LoS Deviation | |||||
| 2.4 | Connection-Lost | Connection-Lost | 0 | 100 | |
| 5 | Connection-Lost | Connection-Lost | 0 | 100 | |
| 6 | Connection-Lost | Connection-Lost | 0 | 100 | |
| Band (GHz) | Floors | RSS (dBm) | Thrpt (Mbps) |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2.4 | 1 | -55.33 | 1.89 |
| 2.4 | ≥2 | - | - |
| 5 | 1 | -50.00 | 5.92 |
| 5 | 2 | -84.67 | 1.49 |
| 5 | ≥3 | - | - |
| 6 | 1 | -42.33 | 9.37 |
| 6 | ≥2 | - | - |
| Band | Walls | Distance | Throughput | Degradation | RSS |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| (GHz) | (m) | (Mbps) | (%) | (dBm) | |
| 2.4 | 1 | 1.5 | 11.46 | 8.67 | -27.67 |
| 2.4 | 2 | 5.0 | 20.17 | 72.64 | -45.33 |
| 2.4 | 3 | 10.0 | 3.32 | 73.52 | -55.00 |
| 5 | 1 | 1.5 | 39.09 | 37.74 | -33.00 |
| 5 | 2 | 5.0 | 47.83 | 30.67 | -52.33 |
| 5 | 3 | 10.0 | 20.98 | 69.59 | -64.67 |
| 6 | 1 | 1.5 | 66.27 | 17.68 | -26.67 |
| 6 | 2 | 5.0 | 67.71 | 17.68 | -29.33 |
| 6 | 3 | 10.0 | 28.36 | 65.53 | -47.00 |
| Band (GHz) | FS | TR | PL | OS | MM-RSS |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| (dBm) | (dBm) | (dBm) | (dBm) | (dBm) | |
| 2.4 | 16.10 | 10.34 | 42.33 | 25.12 | -50.86 |
| 5 | 7.32 | 11.94 | 39.61 | 23.84 | -47.13 |
| 6 | 2.53 | 18.47 | 38.77 | 22.91 | -39.53 |
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2026 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).