Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 8

M. Suneetha Rani et al.

/ IJAIR

ISSN: 2278-7844

Comparison of Standard Propagation Model (SPM) and Stanford University Interim (SUI) Radio Propagation Models for Long Term Evolution (LTE)
M.Suneetha Rani#1 , Subrahmanyam VVRK Behara*2 , K.Suresh#3 # Department of ECE, Chaitanya Engineering College Visakhapatnam, A.P. INDIA
suneethachintala@yahoo.com surech_kutcherlapati@yahoo.co.in * Department of ECE, BITS, Visakhapatnam, A.P. INDIA 2 subrahmanyambehara@gmail.com
3 1

Abstract This paper deals with comparison of SPM (Standard propagation models) used in many planning tools such as Atoll, Asset and Planet for several wireless telecommunication standards and SUI (Stanford University Interim) Radio Propagation Model compared with many conventional models like COST 231 model, HATA, Okumura model and Ericsson 9999 model for the upcoming 4th Generation mobile network known as LTE. Radio Propagation model is intended for knowing cell radius which is a very important factor during planning phase of network deployment. Cell radius directly depends on Path loss generated by different propagation scenarios which are modeled using different Propagation models. Present work makes a comparative analysis through design of mathematical modeling of all the above mentioned propagation models using Matlab. Frequency bands considered are for Asia taken as 1800MHZ and 2100MHz. SPM has given the least Path loss for different areas such as URBAN,SUBURBAN,RURAL compared with all other propagation Models. Keywords: Long Term Evolution, Standard Propagation Model, Stanford University Interim Radio Propagation Model

cost than either 3G or WiMAX. LTE is a superior technology that offers much higher data throughput and lower latency than 3G. Moreover, the promise of a well-developed 3G/LTE ecosystem in the US and Europe may result in more new devices that support both, opening opportunities for Indian operators to explore new business models and potentially new sources. LTE is based on OFDMA (Orthogonal Frequency Division Multiple Access) to be able to reach even higher data rates and data volumes. LTE offers many advantages over competing technologies. However, in the Indian context there are several questions that need to be answered before LTE can become a credible alternative to 3G and WiMAX [3]. 1.1 Spectrum availability The LTE spectrum in India stills lack clarity. Operators may consider deployment in BWA (20 MHz of unpaired spectrum in 2.3 GHz) and 3G (paired spectrum of 2x5 MHz in 2.1 GHz) spectrum bands. In addition, approximately 120 MHz of spectrum in the 700 MHz bandan effective and cost efficient frequency band for LTE deployment could be used for LTE in the future. LTE is developed for a number of frequency bands, ranging from 800 MHz up to 3.5 GHz. The available bandwidths are also flexible starting with 1.4 MHz up to 20 MHz. LTE is developed to support both the time division duplex technology (TDD) as well as frequency division duplex (FDD).

I INTRODUCTION Long Term Evolution, LTE is a standard for wireless communication of high-speed data for mobile phones and data terminals. It is based on the GSM/EDGE and UMTS/HSPA network technologies, increasing the capacity and speed using a different radio interface together with core network improvements. LTE technology is a third option worth considering two technology options 3G and WiMAX to support mobile broadband., as it may provide operators with better performance at a lower
2012 IJAIR. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

221

M. Suneetha Rani et al. / IJAIR


1.2 Current voice congestion Though LTE has a lot of advantages as a mobile broadband technology, any voice solution for it will take a few years or more to materialize. LTE will not serve the purpose of operators looking at 3G spectrum options to ease congestion on their current voice networks. These operators would have to incur incremental capital expenditures in 2G base stations to use 3G spectrum for LTE deployment. 1.3 Technical maturity Many operators worldwide have already committed to LTE and are actively preparing for deployments in the near future. There is an expectation that most Western operators on 3G will eventually move to LTE. However, there has been only limited commercial deployment of LTE to date. Hence, Indian operators need to be careful when considering their LTE deployment time line, given that LTE is still a relatively new technology. 1.4 The motivation for LTE The need to ensure the continuity of competitiveness of the 3G system for the future, user demand for higher data rates and quality of service are the main motivation for LTE. The frequency bands used in various global regions are presented in the Table 1.1
Table 1.1

ISSN: 2278-7844
II RADIO PROPAGATION MODELS Radio planning tools have interfaces for external propagation prediction models, and a large number of different propagation models are commercially available. Radio planning tools also have internal propagation models. The internal models that are used in cellular network planning are typically based on the Okumura-Hata (O-H) formulas. For a given frequency band, the Okumura-Hata formulas are simple functions of distance, but the effect of the digital map is included by adding antenna height, diffraction and clutter corrections into the basic Okumura-Hata loss. The exact implementation of the antenna height, diffraction and clutter corrections as well as other possible adjustments varies from one planning tool to another. To find an accurate model for propagation losses is a leading issue when planning a mobile radio network. Two strategies for predicting propagation losses are in use these days: one is to derive an empirical propagation model from measurement data and the other is to use a deterministic propagation model. 2.1 Standard Propagation Model Propagation models in Asset and Atoll are based on Okumura-Hata models which support frequencies higher than 1500 MHz. These models in Asset and Atoll are termed as standard propagation models. Standard Propagation Model (SPM) is based on empirical formulas and a set of parameters are set to their default values[1]. However, they can be adjusted to tune the propagation model according to actual propagation conditions. SPM is based on the following formula[1] = 1 + 2 + 3 ) + 4 +5 ( + 6 + -------------(1) For hilly terrain, the correction path loss when transmitter and receiver are in LOS is given by = 1 + 2 + 3 + 5 + 6 + + -------------(2) When transmitter and receiver are not in line of sight NLOS, the path loss formula is = 1 + 2 + 3 + 4 + 5 + 6 + -------------(3)

Region North America Europe Asia Australia

Frequency Bands 700/800 and 1700/1900 MHz 800, 900, 1800, 2600 MHz 1800 and 2600 MHz in Asia 1800 MHz

The LTE standard can be used with many different frequency bands. As a result, phones from one country may not work in other countries. Users will need a multi-band capable phone for roaming internationally. The selection of a suitable radio propagation model for LTE is of great importance. A radio propagation model describes the behavior of the signal while it is transmitted from the transmitter towards the receiver. It gives a relation between the distance of transmitter and receiver and the path loss. Path loss depends on the condition of environment (urban, suburban, rural, dense urban, open, etc.) operating frequency, atmospheric conditions, indoor/outdoor and the distance between the transmitter and receiver. In this paper a comparison is made between SUI and SPM models in different terrains to find out the model having least path loss in a particular terrain in coverage point of view.
2012 IJAIR. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

222

M. Suneetha Rani et al. / IJAIR


Where, 1 = frequency constant . 2 = Distance attenuation constant . d =distance between the receiver and transmitter (m). 3 , 4 = Correction coefficient of height of mobile station antenna Diffractiion loss: loss due to diffraction over an obstructed path (dB). 5 , 6 = Correction coefficient of height of base station antenna. = correction coefficient of clutter attenuation, the signal strength of a given point is modified according to the clutter class at this point and is irrelevant to the clutter class in the transmission path. All losses in the transmission path are included in the median loss. hm , hb = effective height of antenna in mobile station and base station respectively, unit: m In radio transmissions, the value of K varies according to terrains, features and environment of cities. = (). f(clutter)= average of weighted losses due to clutter.
Table 2.1 K-Parameters for a Metropolitan City in India(Asia)

ISSN: 2278-7844
The path loss in SUI model can be described as PL= A+ 10 log ( /) + + + ---------(4) where PL represents Path Loss in dBs, d is the distance between the transmitte and receiver, is the reference distance (Here its value is 100), is the frequency correction factor, is the Correction factor for Base station height, S is shadowing and is the path loss component and it is described as c = a bhb + -------------(5)
hb

Where hb is the height of the base station and a, b and c represent the terrain for which the values are selected from the above table. 4 d A = 20 log o -------------(6)

Where A is the free space path loss while do is the distance between Tx and Rx and is the wavelength, The correction factor for frequency and base station height are as follows: f h Xf =6 log , X h = 10.8 log r --(7) & (8)
2000 2000

K Values K1 K2 K3 K4 K5 K6 Kclutter

Dense Urban 16.375 48 5.83 0.8 -6.55 0 1

Urban 17.575 45.9 5.83 0.8 -6.55 0 1

Suburban 17.675 44.9 5.83 0.8 -6.55 0 1

Rural 5.275 48 5.83 0.8 -6.55 0 1

High ways 26.625 40.1 5.83 0.8 -6.55 0 1

Where f is the frequency in MHz, and hr is the height of the receiver antenna. This expression is used for terrain type A and B. For terrain C, the below expression is used. h Xh = - 20 log ( r ), 2000 S = 0.65(log f)2 1.3 log f + --------(9) & (10) Here dB for rural and suburban environments(Terrain A & B) and 6.6 dB for urban environment (Terrain C). 2.3 Free Space Loss Model In telecommunication, free-space path loss (FSPL) is the loss in signal strength of an electromagnetic wave that would result from a lineof-sight path through free space (usually air), with no obstacles nearby to cause reflection or diffraction. It does not include factors such as the gain of the antennas used at the transmitter and receiver, nor any loss associated with hardware imperfections. A discussion of these losses may be found in the article on link budget. Free-space path loss formula Free-space path loss is proportional to the square of the distance between the transmitter and receiver, and also proportional to the square of the frequency of the radio signal. The basic equation is () = 4 / 2 -----(11) FSPL(dB)= 32.44+ 20 log 10(d) + 20 log10(f) --(12)

2.2 Stanford University Interim (SUI) Model Stanford University Interim (SUI) model is developed for IEEE 802.16 by Stanford University[2]. It is used for frequencies above 1900MHz. In this propagation model, three different types of terrains or areas are considered(Table 2.2). These are called as terrain A,B and C. Terrain A represents an area with highest path loss; it can be a very dense populated region while terrain B represents an area with moderate path loss, a suburban environment. Terrain C has the least path loss which describes a rural or flat area.
Table 2.2: Different Terrains and their parameters

Parameters a b (1/m) c (m)

Terrain A 4.6 0.0075 12.6

Terrain B 4 0.0065 17.1

Terrain C 3.6 0.005 20

2012 IJAIR. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

223

M. Suneetha Rani et al. / IJAIR

ISSN: 2278-7844

Where f is the signal frequency (in mega hertz), d is the distance from the transmitter (in km). This equation is only accurate in the far field where spherical spreading can be assumed. It does not hold good when receiver is close to the transmitter. 2.4 Cost 231 Hata Model The COST-Hata-Model is the most often cited of the COST 231 models[5]. Also called the Hata Model PCS Extension, it is a radio propagation model that extends the Hata Model (which in turn is based on the Okumura Model) to cover a more elaborated range of frequencies. COST is a European Union Forum for cooperative scientific research which has developed this model accordingly to various experiments and researches. Coverage Frequency: 150 MHz to 2000 MHz Mobile Station Antenna Height: 1 up to 10m Base station Antenna Height: 30m to 200m Link Distance: 1 up to 30 km Mathematical Formulation: The COST-Hata-Model is formulated as, Path Loss(L)= 46.3 + 33.9 log10(f) 13.82 log10(hb) a(hm) + (44.9 - 6.55 log(hb))log10(d) + C [dB]--(13) For suburban or rural environments: Where, L = Median path loss. Unit: Decibel (dB) f = Frequency of Transmission. (MHz) hb = Base Station Antenna effective height.Meter (m) d = Link distance. (km) hm = Mobile Station Antenna effective height (m) a(hm) = Mobile station Antenna height correction factor as described in the Hata model for Urban Areas. The European Co-operative for Scientific and Technical research (EUROCOST) formed the COST-231 working committee to develop an extended version of the Hata model. COST-231 proposed the following formula to extend Hata's model to 2 GHz. The parameter C is defined as 0 dB for suburban or open environments and 3 dB for urban environments. The parameter a(hm) is defined for various propagation environments. Path loss prediction could be more accurate but models are not complex and fast calculations are possible precision greatly depends on the city structure

2.5 COST-231 Walfisch-Ikegami Model COST-231 Walfisch-Ikegami model is an extension of COST Hata model. It can be used for frequencies above 2000 MHz. Line of Site(LOS) path loss is given by following formula PL=42.64+26log(d)+20 log (f) -------------(14) For NLOS condition, the path loss is given by PL=Lo+Lrts+Lmsd -------------(15) where Lo is the attenuation in free space and is described as: Lo=32.45+20 log(d)+20log(f) ---------------(16) Lrts represents diffraction from rooftop to street and is defined as: Lrts= 16.9 10 log w + 10 log f + 20 log hb hm + Lori --------(17) Here Lori is a function of the orientation of the antenna relative to the street a (in degrees) and is defined as: Lori= -10+0.354 a for 0<a<35 -------------(18) Lmsd represents diffraction loss due to multiple obstacles and is specified as a2 + b2 = Lmsd = Lbsd + Ka + kd log d + Kf log f 9 log sb -------------(19) Where Lbsd = -18 log (1+ht-hb) for ht>hb = 54+0.8 (ht-hb)2 d for ht<hb Ka=54 for ht>hb and 54+0.8(ht-hb) for ht<hb and d>0.5 km. Kd=18 + 15
ht hb hb f

for ht>hb

Kd=18 for ht<hb Kf=4 + k 924 Here, K=0.7 for suburban centers and 1.5 for metropolitan centers. 2.6 Ericsson 9999 Model This model is the extension of Hata model. Hata model is used for frequencies upto 1900 MHz. In this ericsson model the parameters are adjusted according to the given scenario. The pathloss is = a o log d + a1 log d + a 2 log hb + a3log(hb )logd 3.2(log11.752hr+g(f) Where g(f) = 44.49 log(f)-4.78 ((log(f))^2 -------(20) The values of a o , a1 , a 2 and a 3 are constant but they can be changed according to the scenario

2012 IJAIR. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

224

M. Suneetha Rani et al. / IJAIR


(environment). The defaults values given by the Ericsson model are shown in Table 2.3
Table 2.3 Values of , ,

ISSN: 2278-7844
mentioned previously for rural, suburban and urban environments. The results show that in general the SUI and the COST-231 Hata model over-predict the path loss in all environments. The ECC-33 model shows the best results, especially in urban environments [2]. They comparison of propagation models is also being done in [10] & [11]. IV SPM INVESTIGATION METHODOLOGY Our research question is to find out the radio propagation model which will give us the least path loss in a particular terrain. The main problem is that LTE is using 1900 MHz and 2100 MHz frequency bands in different regions of the world. In some regions, frequencies of 700 MHz, 1800 MHz and 2600 MHz are also considered for LTE. For these frequency bands, many different radio propagation models are available that can be used in different terrains like urban, dense urban, suburban, rural etc. We will make a comparison between different radio propagation models and find out the model that is best suitable in a particular terrain. The comparison is made on the basis of path loss, antenna height and transmission frequency.
Value(Units) 1900 & 2100 MHz 0-30 KM 30 m 3m Diffraction loss,clutter K4=0

Area/paramete rs urban suburban rural

ao 36.2 43.2 0 45.9 5

a1 30.2 68.9 3 100. 6

a2 1 2 1 2 1 2

a3 0. 1 0. 1 0. 1

III LITERATURE SURVEY LTE is well positioned to meet the requirements of next-generation mobile networks for existing 3GPP operators. It will enable operators to offer high performance, mass market mobile broadband services, through a combination of high bit-rates and system throughput, in both the uplink and downlink and with low latency [3]. A comprehensive set of propagation measurements taken at 3.5 GHz in Cambridge, UK is used to validate the applicability of the three models
S.No 1 2 3 4 5 6

Table 4.1 Parameters used in simulation

Parameter Operating Frequencies(LTE Asia) Distance of operation Base Station Heights (Urban,Sub-Urban & Rural) End User Equipment Height(Mobile station Height) NLOS Parameters LOS Parameters

V RESULTS AND DISCUSSION In our simulation, two different operating frequencies 1900 MHz & 2100 MHz are used. The average building height is fixed to 15 m while the building to building distance is 50 m and street width is 25 m. All the remaining parameters used in our simulations are described in Table 5.1. Almost all the propagation models are available to be used both in LOS & NLOS environments. In our simulations, to make the scenario more practical, NLOS is used in urban, suburban & rural conditions. But LOS condition is being considered for rural area in COST 231 W-I model because it did not provide any specific parameters for rural area [11]. The empirical formulas of path loss calculation as described in the earlier section are used and the path loss is plotted against the distance for different frequencies & different BS heights. Figure 2 & Figure 3 shows the path loss for SUI model for
2012 IJAIR. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

1900 MHz & 2100 MHz respectively. Similarly, Figure 4 & Figure 5 are for Okumura model for 1900 MHz & 2100 MHz respectively. In Figure 6, the path loss for COST 231 Hata model for 1900 MHz is shown. In Figure 7 & Figure 8, path loss for COST Walfisch-Ikegami Model is depicted for the same two frequencies. Observations: SPM model has the lowest path loss in all types of environments for 2100 MHz. shown in Fig.1,Fig.3,Fig.5. SPM model has the lowest path loss in all types of environments for 1900 MHz. shown in Fig.2,Fig.4 & Fig.6 SUI model has a consistent path loss in all types of environments but higher when compared with SPM

1.

2.

3.

225

M. Suneetha Rani et al. / IJAIR


All other models which are not including terrain specifications such as K- parameters are having
Loss/Areas Free Space Loss COST-231 HATA COST-231 W I ERICSSON 9999 SUI SPM Frequency MHz 2100 1900 2100 1900 2100 1900 2100 1900 2100 1900 2100 1900 URBAN 98.895-128.4368 98.0251-27.5675 138.8196- 190.8510 137.34-189.3775 130.9086 - 297.8233 128.5657-95.4804 145.4490 -190.2762 143- 188.5502 127.2581 - 188.0663 126.128-186.9362 76.0901 -193.1187 75.220 - 192.2494

ISSN: 2278-7844
higher path loss prediction than SPM model.

Table 5.2 Comparison of various RPMs for different areas*

SUBURBAN 98.8944 - 128.4368 98.0251-27.5675 133.7298 -185.7611 132.336-184.3672 122.1332 -178.2638 120.9496-77.0802 131.6178 -233.6540 130.0996-32.1357 101.61 - 166.6540 100.331-164.9555 45.1728 - 97.2042 44.3035-96.3348

RURAL 98.8944 -128.4368 98.0251-27.5675 133.7298 -185.7611 132.336-184.3672 109.0444 - 147.4495 108.175-146.5802 134.3678 -283.1844 132.85-281.6662 124.8581 - 185.6663 123.728-184.5362 52.773 138.926 51.903-138.056

* Range of values taken for 0(Minimum)-30(Maximum)Km

Fig.1 Urban-2100MHz

Fig.2 Urban-1900MHz

Fig.3 Suburban-2100MHz
2012 IJAIR. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

Fig.4 Suburban-2100MHz

226

M. Suneetha Rani et al. / IJAIR


[1]

ISSN: 2278-7844
Hormoz Parsian, Comparison of Asset and Atoll Cellular Planning Tools for LTE Network Planning, AALTO UNIVERSITY-2012 Josip Milanovic, Rimac-Drlje S, Bejuk K, Comparison of propagation model accuracy for WiMAX on 3.5GHz, 14th IEEE International conference on electronic circuits and systems, Morocco, pp. 111-114. 2007. LTE an Introduction, White paper, Ericsson AB, 2009. V.S. Abhayawardhana, I.J. Wassel, D. Crosby, M.P. Sellers, M.G. Brown, Comparison of empirical propagation path loss models for fixed wireless access systems, 61th IEEE Technology Conference, Stockholm, pp. 73-77, 2005. Okumura, Y. a kol, Field Strength and its Variability in VHF and UHF Land-Mobile Radio Service, Rev. Elec. Comm. Lab, No.9-10, pp. 825 - 873, 1968. Hata, M, Empirical Formula for Propagation Loss in Land Mobile Radio Services, IEEE Trans. Vehicular Technology, VT-29, pp. 317 - 325, 1980. COST Action 231, Digital mobile radio towards future generation systems, final report, tech. rep., European Communities, EUR 18957, 1999. Amarasinghe K.C., Peiris K.G.A.B., Thelisinghe L.A.D.M.D., Warnakulasuriya G.M., and Samarasinghe A.T.L.K , Fourth International Conference on Industrial and Information Systems, ICIIS 2009, 28 - 31 December 2009, Sri Lanka. Simic I. lgor, Stanic I., and Zrnic B., Minimax LS Algorithm for Automatic Propagation Model Tuning, Proceeding of the 9th Telecommunications Forum (TELFOR 2001), Belgrade, Nov.2001. B. Ramakrishnan, R. S. Rajesh and R. S. Shaji An Efficient Vehicular Communication Outside the City Environments, International Journal of Next Generation Networks (IJNGN), volume 2, December 2010. M. Shahjahan, A. Q. Abdulla Hes-Shafi, Analysis of Propagation Models for WiMAX at 3.5 GHz, MS thesis, Blekinge Institute of Technology, Karlskrona, Sweden, 2009. N. Shabbir, H. Kasihf, Radio Resource Management in WiMAX, MS thesis, Blekinge Institute of Technology, Karlskrona, Sweden, 2009. Khaled Elleithy and Varun Rao, Femto Cells: Current Status and Future Directions International Journal of Next Generation Networks (IJNGN), volume 3, March 2011. H. R. Anderson, Fixed Broadband Wireless System Design, John Wiley & Co., 2003. G. E. Athanasiadou, A. R. Nix, and J. P. McGeehan, A microcellular ray-tracing propagation model and evaluation of its narrowband and wideband predictions, IEEE Journal on Selected Areas in Communications, Wireless Communications series, vol. 18, pp. 322335, March2000. Khaled Elleithy and Varun Rao, Femto Cells: Current Status and Future Directions International Journal of Next Generation Networks (IJNGN), volume 3, March 2011. V. Erceg, L. J. Greenstein, et al., An empirically based path loss model for wireless channels in suburban environments, IEEE Journal on Selected Areas of Communications, vol. 17, pp. 12051211, July1999. M. A. Alim, M. M. Rahman, M. M. Hossain, A. AlNahid, Analysis of Large-Scale Propagation Models for Mobile Communications in Urban Area, International Journal of Computer Science and Information Security (IJCSIS), Vol. 7, No. 1, 2010.

[2]

[3] [4]

[5]

[6]

Fig.5 Rural-2100MHz

[7]

[8]

[9]

[10]

[11]

Fig.6 Rural-1900MHz VI CONCLUSION Standard propagation model has considerably good in terms of path loss in all the terrains such as Urban, Suburban and Rural for both 1900 and 2100 MHz that can be used for LTE in asia.SPM has shown the superior performance over all other radio propagation models. Current planning tools which are using the SPM as the propagation model can be used for planning of the LTE network deployment. Experimental procedures need to be further made to this simulation and results are to be adopted for planning of LTE in Asia.. Current simulation is based on a metropolitan city in India and Path loss is calculated on a generalized basis. Stringent Experimental procedures are to be adopted for calculating K-Values for location of interest and to be incorporated for SPM for obtaining Path Loss. REFERENCES

[12]

[13]

[14] [15]

[16]

[17]

[18]

2012 IJAIR. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

227

M. Suneetha Rani et al. / IJAIR


[19] F. D. Alotaibi and A. A. Ali, April 2008, Tuning of lee path loss model based on recent RF measurements in 400 MHz conducted in Riyadh city, Saudi Arabia, The Arabian Journal for Science and Engineering, Vol 33, no 1B, pp. 145152.

ISSN: 2278-7844

2012 IJAIR. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

228