Documentation / Sample Reports

Sample Reports

What a report contains

FresnelPath generates structured engineering reports suitable for deployment documentation and regulator submission packages. Every field carries a provenance tag — configured, assumed, measured, or derived — so reviewers know which inputs were field-verified and which were estimated.

The same underlying analysis renders for four audiences — regulator, customer, engineer, and field worker — and can be narrowed by report scope (full, LoRaWAN, satellite, Wi-Fi HaLow, node link, or technology comparison) so each reader gets the relevant depth. The full-scope structure below is the superset.

Full-scope report structure

01 Document Control
↓
Project name, customer or organization, site identifier, document revision, issue date. Author and approver fields for formal submission workflows. Status: draft / issued_for_review / final — automatically downgraded to draft if any blocking validation issue is present.
02 Regulatory Basis
↓
Country code, LoRaWAN region (e.g. EU868, AU915), operating frequency in MHz, maximum EIRP per regional parameters, duty cycle, regulatory authority name, and citation URL. This section is what regulators check first — it must be complete for a report to reach issued_for_review status.
03 Site Inputs
↓
Gateway and target node coordinates (latitude, longitude, altitude), antenna height above ground level, terrain data source (Copernicus GLO-30, 30 m resolution), coordinate datum (WGS84). Heights and coordinates are carried with their provenance tag — measured values can be distinguished from design-intent values.
04 Equipment Basis
↓
Gateway vendor, model, chipset, and RF frontend. Antenna model, gain (dBi), polarisation, tilt, and feeder loss. Node radio module and sensitivity. When an equipment profile from the catalog is selected, gain values are populated from the profile rather than from manually-entered estimates — the distinction is recorded in the provenance field.
05 Propagation Model
↓
Which model ran (FSPL, Okumura-Hata, ITM, ITU-R P.1812-6, ITU-R P.1546-6), terrain data source, diffraction method selected (knife-edge / Bullington / Deygout / Epstein-Peterson), path loss in dB, and time-percentage reliability parameter where applicable. ITU-R recommendation number is cited directly in the report.
06 Link Budget
↓
Uplink and downlink sides with TX power (dBm), EIRP (dBm), total path loss (dB), receiver sensitivity (dBm), received power (dBm), and link margin (dB). A positive margin means the link closes at the stated spreading factor. The margin required for your deployment depends on your fade and availability requirements — the report presents the numbers; the judgment is yours.
07 Path Analysis
↓
Path distance, Fresnel zone clearance status (60% threshold from ITU-R P.526-15), obstruction count, obstruction height above line-of-sight. A rendered path profile image — terrain cross-section with Fresnel zone arcs and the LoS line — is embedded in the report. This is what makes the analysis reviewable by someone who wasn't in the room.
08 LoRaWAN Network Design
↓
Active spreading factor, bandwidth, the range of viable SFs for this path, expected ADR behaviour, commissioning notes. For gateway placement analyses: coverage radius per SF, estimated node capacity (Aloha model), duty-cycle headroom. KPI targets for the acceptance test.
09 Risk & Acceptance
↓
Risk matrix entries with severity and mitigation notes. Acceptance test plan: the measurable criteria that define commissioning success. This section is where the design intent becomes a handover document for the installer. Risks are written against the specific path — not generic boilerplate.

What FresnelPath provides — and what you provide

FresnelPath fills in:

  • ✓ Terrain profile from 30 m DEM
  • ✓ Propagation model selection and path loss calculation
  • ✓ Fresnel zone clearance analysis
  • ✓ LoRaWAN regional parameters from RP002-1.0.5
  • ✓ Link budget arithmetic
  • ✓ ITU-R recommendation citations

You supply:

  • → Customer name, site ID, revision
  • → Equipment model verification from datasheets
  • → Field-measured parameters (actual height, actual gain)
  • → Regulator letterhead and signatures
  • → Acceptance test execution and sign-off

Sample reports are watermarked SAMPLE — NOT FOR SUBMISSION and use placeholder stakeholder names. They demonstrate the structure; you replace the placeholders with your actual project data.

Generate a report from a real analysis.

Open the Analyzer →