Es & Ses

o The GSM network will fall under the local grade category; thus for on link from the switch to the far end site limitations are as follows: o Max allowed number of SES/month=31 sec. (SESR=0.00015%) (1-SESR = 99.99985). o Max allowed number of ES/month=31104 sec. (ESR=0.012) (1-ESR=99.988). o If we consider that this link consists of 10 hops thus the limitations per hop are as follows: o Max allowed number of SES/month=3.1 sec. o Max allowed number of ES/month= 3110 sec.

#1 10-07-2004, 06:07 PM
M.Kamal ALFahel

Posts: n/a

Hi Everybody, I have a radio route of length 200Km,consists of segments between 32Km and 20Km and to determine the SESR limits I am using the formula: SESR=0.002(0.02 + 0.01*(L/500Km)) And for every segment I calculate the corresponding percentage of the SESR. I got this formula from the Internet and I wonder if it's right to be used or not. Thanks

M.Kamal ALFahel #2 12-21-2005, 12:52 PM

Hossam_El_Meadawy
Member Es & Ses

Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: Cairo, Egypt. Posts: 99

o The GSM network will fall under the local grade category; thus for on link from the switch to the far end site limitations are as follows: o Max allowed number of SES/month=31 sec. (SESR=0.00015%) (1-SESR = 99.99985). o Max allowed number of ES/month=31104 sec. (ESR=0.012) (1-ESR=99.988). o If we consider that this link consists of 10 hops thus the limitations per hop are as follows:

o Max allowed number of SES/month=3.1 sec. o Max allowed number of ES/month= 3110 sec.

Hossam_El_Meadawy View Public Profile Send a private message to Hossam_El_Meadawy Find all posts by Hossam_El_Meadawy Add Hossam_El_Meadawy to Your Buddy List #3 01-03-2006, 08:42 AM

Abdul S. Durrani
Junior Member G 826 Calculations Quote:

Join Date: Dec 2005 Location: Canada Posts: 7

Originally Posted by M.Kamal ALFahel Hi Everybody, I have a radio route of length 200Km,consists of segments between 32Km and 20Km and to determine the SESR limits I am using the formula: SESR=0.002(0.02 + 0.01*(L/500Km)) And for every segment I calculate the corresponding percentage of the SESR. I got this formula from the Internet and I wonder if it's right to be used or not. Thanks Hello Kamal: This is me Abdul S. Durrani. For the hop links you have, do not use 500 but use 100 for each segment. For example 32/100, and 20/100 and 0.02 can also be .01 ( 1 % to 2 %). Remember my courses notes. Please make the changes. I wil send you a calculator so you can quickly do these ITU G 826 objectives. Happy New Year. Abdul Durrani

Abdul S. Durrani View Public Profile Send a private message to Abdul S. Durrani Send email to Abdul S. Durrani Find all posts by Abdul S. Durrani Add Abdul S. Durrani to Your Buddy List #4

03-01-2006, 03:18 PM

Kamal
Junior Member Reply to Mr.Durrani
Hello Mr.durrani did u check the date I sent my question? any way I'll still wait for the calculater B.R

Join Date: Oct 2005 Posts: 13

Kamal View Public Profile Send a private message to Kamal Find all posts by Kamal Add Kamal to Your Buddy List #5 02-15-2008, 04:33 AM

bashi
Junior Member Mannual
HI All Path Loss users

Join Date: Feb 2008 Posts: 1

can any provide me with the PL4 mannual.my email id is given below if u can send through email Thanks & BR Mubashir email : mubashir@nec-isb.com.pk

bashi View Public Profile

Similar Threads

Thread

Thread Starter

Forum

Replie s 3

Last Post 08092005

SESR

M.Kamal Fahel

Pathloss Users Forum

Similar Threads

07:30 AM SESR Calculation method 01112005 09:26 AM 11092004 01:24 PM

Mitchell C

Pathloss Users Forum

CDED data config in Pathloss

Jean-Benoit Gauthier Pathloss Users Forum

#1 02-07-2003, 07:29 PM

Rejean Gosselin
Junior Member

Join Date: Oct 2005 Posts: 4

What is the best way to determine the climatic factor (cf) in the Barnett & Vigants reliability formula? Not the C Factor! Standard values seem to vary from 0.5 to 1 and 2. How can we determine the exact value depending on the climatic conditions of a specific area? I am especially looking for many areas in the province of Quebec in Canada. Where can I find a climatic factor map? Thanks!

Rejean Gosselin View Public Profile Send a private message to Rejean Gosselin Find all posts by Rejean Gosselin

Add Rejean Gosselin to Your Buddy List #2 02-17-2003, 08:01 AM

Lars H-L
Junior Member Vigants-Barnett reliability method

Join Date: Oct 2005 Posts: 13

Maybe maps for the climatic factor cf do not exist (are not published). Then use instead the C factor with associated maps. The C factor is also by definition equal to cf for average terrain rouhness S = 15.2m For a more detailed calculation you can use one of the newer ITU-R P.530 reliability methods. These are applicable worldwide. Regards, Lars H-L

Lars H-L View Public Profile Send a private message to Lars H-L Find all posts by Lars H-L Add Lars H-L to Your Buddy List #3 02-17-2003, 12:52 PM

Rejean Gosselin
Junior Member Climatic factor

Join Date: Oct 2005 Posts: 4

Thanks a lot Lars for your reply and your suggestion about the climatic factor for reliability calculation. I only began to compare the ITU-530 methods with the Barnett & Vigants method. Which method is the more reliable after you? 530-6 or 530-7/8 or the newest 530-9 ? I get similar results when the path inclination is near 0 mr, but I get very different results when the path inclination is about 10 mr. What do you think about this? Thanks a lot for your collaboration.

Rejean Gosselin View Public Profile Send a private message to Rejean Gosselin Find all posts by Rejean Gosselin

Add Rejean Gosselin to Your Buddy List #4 02-18-2003, 06:39 AM

mike

Posts: n/a

climatic factor
ITU made a lot of changements over the last years for the recommendation P530. Therefore, if you are sure what kind of parameter set for the Barnett&Vigants is correct for your area you can choose this model. If you have no idea the P530-9 recommendation gives a detailed model where you only need the data provided by ITU and the GTopo30 DTM from USGS to get the right parameters. You do not have to look anywhere else. This model seems to be proved with hundreds of hops all over the world. Nevertheless there will be a new recommendation P530-10 soon. Let's see what will be new this time. mike

mike #5 02-18-2003, 12:13 PM

Lars H-L
Junior Member Reliability methods

Join Date: Oct 2005 Posts: 13

Rejean, here is my comments to the three ITU-R P.530 reliability methods implemented in PL4. P.530-6(detailed planning)uses an average grazing angle which for many(most) paths is ambiguous or even meaningless. P.530-7/8 does away with this average grazing angle. Instead many link classes are introduced, which makes it somewhat cumbersome, especially for coastal links. P.530-9/10 (detailed link design)uses a terrain database (GTopo30) and the refractivity gradient data are incorporated in PL4. This makes the method convenient in use, but the method itself and/or the PL4 implementation may be unreliable (see the thread in this user forum initiated on Sep.13, 2002 by AK). At present I regard P.530-7/8 to be the most reliable method.

Lars H-L View Public Profile Send a private message to Lars H-L Find all posts by Lars H-L Add Lars H-L to Your Buddy List

#6 02-18-2003, 12:16 PM

Rejean Gosselin

Junior Member Climatic Factor...

Thanks a lot Mike for your reply.

Join Date: Oct 2005 Posts: 4

I will use both methods (Barnett & Vigants as well as ITU 530-9) and compare them on each link. Then I will probably be able to take a better decision. Best regards!

Rejean Gosselin View Public Profile Send a private message to Rejean Gosselin Find all posts by Rejean Gosselin Add Rejean Gosselin to Your Buddy List #7 02-18-2003, 12:34 PM

Rejean Gosselin
Junior Member Climatic Factor
Dear Lars, Thanks for your comments about each ITU method.

Join Date: Oct 2005 Posts: 4

The main point I am wondering about is why the path inclination has such an effect on the reliability result? ITU 530-6 and 530-7/8 are the only two methods using this parameter. I get 99.9999% compared to 99.999% if the path inclination is respectively 10 mr instead of about 1 mr. Is it the reality?

Rejean Gosselin View Public Profile Send a private message to Rejean Gosselin Find all posts by Rejean Gosselin Add Rejean Gosselin to Your Buddy List #8 02-18-2003, 01:48 PM
mike

Posts: n/a

inclination
In general a high low path is more reliable than a path without any inclination. The reason for this is the less high probability for multipath with a certain inclination. mike

mike #9 12-19-2005, 07:24 AM

Hossam_El_Meadawy
Member Path inclination and ITU-R

Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: Cairo, Egypt. Posts: 99

I would also like to say that I see version 7/8 more reliable than version 9/10 in the clculation of the Geoclimatic factor, because in the calculation in 9/10 they refere to the GTOPO 30 DEM wich proved to be very unreliable. and there is no dought that the path inclination in a very important parameter in the calculation of the Geoclimatic factor.

Hossam_El_Meadawy View Public Profile Send a private message to Hossam_El_Meadawy Find all posts by Hossam_El_Meadawy Add Hossam_El_Meadawy to Your Buddy List

Previous Thread | Next Thread