Towards a lightweight protocol for Industry 4.0: An implementation based benchmark
Abstract
The next industrial revolution, generally referred to as Industry 4.0, is already here. This envisions a rapid transformation in the design, operation and service of manufacturing systems, where machines, sensors and actuators are interconnected in the factories in order to enable spontaneous collaboration, monitoring and control. Currently, Cyber-Physical-Systems (CPS) use regular Internet protocols (e.g. SOAP or HTTP) to communicate with each other. However, these protocols inherently present certain drawbacks or disadvantages: large footprint, CPU usage, high memory and energy consumption, etc. In recent years, new Industrial Internet of Things (IIoT) protocols have emerged to solve this issue, such as the Constrained Application Protocol (CoAP) and MQ Telemetry Transport (MQTT). These are lightweight protocols designed to face the challenges of industrial environments with a small footprint and overhead. These protocols have different features in terms of communication model and Quality of Service (QoS), that make them more suitable to an specific domain. Thus, it is important to identify the right metrics to adopt the most appropriate. This paper presents a theoretical and empirical comparison of MQTT and CoAP in terms of network overhead and latency, to assist system designers with this decision. Furthermore we describe the quantitative comparison conducted with their implementation in hardware platforms with high constraints. The achieved results provide useful metrics and guidelines to help designers to choose the appropriate schemes for their implementations.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
MQTT protocol defined under ISO/IEC 20922:2016 is a good fit for IIoT devices in production floor communication to SCADA system.
“For example, the Message Queuing Telemetry Transport (MQTT) protocol defined under ISO/IEC 20922:2016 standard is a good fit for IIoT devices in the production floor i.e. their communication to SCADA system, given its characteristics [21], [52], [53]:”
From SCADA Systems With Focus on Continuous Manufacturing and Steel Industry: A Survey on Architectures, Standards, Challenges and Industry 5.0 (2022) · cites this paper as [52]
Cites
Performance evaluation of MQTT and CoAP via a common middleware
Thangavel, D., Ma, X., Valera, A., Tan, H., & Tan, C. K.-Y. (2014) · International Conference on Intelligent Sensors, Sensor Networks and Information Processing · doi:10.1109/issnip.2014.6827678 · Cited by 453 · see citing works
Performance evaluation of IoT protocols under a constrained wireless access network
Chen, Y., & Kunz, T. (2016) · doi:10.1109/mownet.2016.7496622 · Cited by 197 · see citing works
Comparison of two lightweight protocols for smartphone-based sensing
Caro, N. D., Colitti, W., Steenhaut, K., Mangino, G., & Reali, G. (2013) · IEEE Symposium on Communications and Vehicular Technology in the Benelux (SCVT) · doi:10.1109/scvt.2013.6735994 · Cited by 131 · see citing works
An Assessment of Internet of Things Protocols for Resource-Constrained Applications
Mun, D.-H., Dinh, M. L., & Kwon, Y. (2016) · IEEE Annual Computer Software and Applications Conference (COMPSAC) · doi:10.1109/compsac.2016.51 · Cited by 58 · see citing works
Taláminos-Barroso, A., Estudillo‐Valderrama, M. Á., Roa, L. M., Reina‐Tosina, J., & Ruiz, F. Ó. (2016) · Computer Methods and Programs in Biomedicine · doi:10.1016/j.cmpb.2016.03.004 · Cited by 55 · see citing works
Mapping different communication traffic over DDS in industrial environments
Etxeberria‐Agiriano, I., Calvo, I., Pérez, F., et al. (2011) · Cited by 10 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Survey, comparison and research challenges of IoT application protocols for smart farming
Glaroudis, D., Iossifides, A., & Chatzimisios, P. (2020) · Computer Networks · doi:10.1016/j.comnet.2019.107037 · Cited by 253 · see citing works
Calderón Godoy, A. J., & González Pérez, I. (2018) · Journal of Sensor and Actuator Networks · doi:10.3390/jsan7020023 · Cited by 71 · see citing works
Sverko, M., Grbac, T. G., & Mikuc, M. (2022) · IEEE Access · doi:10.1109/access.2022.3211288 · Cited by 71 · see citing works
“For example, the Message Queuing Telemetry Transport (MQTT) protocol defined under ISO/IEC 20922:2016 standard is a good fit for IIoT devices in the production floor, i.e. their communication to SCADA system, given its characteristics [20], [52], [53]: It is based on Ethernet and Wi-Fi infrastructure.”
BackgroundMethod
- Authors
- Iglesias-Urkia, M., Orive, A., Barcelo, M., Moran, A., Bilbao, J., & Urbieta, A.
- Affiliations
- Ikerlan (ES)
- Venue
- 2017 IEEE International Workshop of Electronics, Control, Measurement, Signals and their Application to Mechatronics (ECMSM)
- Publisher
- IEEE
- Published
- 2017-05
- Pages
- 1-6
- OpenAlex
- W2624855314
- Cited by
- 53
- References
- 6
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 7 · 2020: 8 · 2019: 8 · 2018: 11 · 2017: 1
- FWCI
- 10.83
- Type
- conference paper
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- IEEE International Workshop of Electronics, Control, Measurement, Signals and their Application to Mechatronics (ECMSM) (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Engineering › Electrical and Electronic Engineering › IoT Networks and Protocols
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Networks and Communications › IoT and Edge/Fog Computing
- Physical Sciences › Engineering › Industrial and Manufacturing Engineering › Digital Transformation in Industry
- Keywords
- Industry 4.0, Industrial Internet of Things, lightweight protocols, MQTT, CoAP, network overhead, latency, protocol comparison, cyber-physical systems, resource-constrained devices, quality of service
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review