Doc.: IEEE 802. 15-11-0571-00-004k Submission August 2011 Lawrence Materum, Shuzo Kato, and Hirokazu...

doc.: IEEE 802. 15-11-0571-00-004k

Submission

August 2011

Lawrence Materum, Shuzo Kato, and Hirokazu Sawada , RIEC

Slide 1

Project: IEEE P802.15 Working Group for Wireless Personal Area Networks (WPANs)

Submission Title: [Channel Model Comparison for 802.15 TG4k]Date Submitted: [24 August, 2011]Source: [Lawrence Materum, Shuzo Kato, and Hirokazu Sawada] Company [RIEC of Tohoku University] and [Sourav Dey] Company [On-Ramp Wireless]Address [2-1-1 Katahira, Aoba-ku, Sendai 980-8577, Japan; 10920 Via Frontera, Suite 200, San Diego, CA 92127, USA]Voice:[+81-22-217-5477; +1-858-592-6008], FAX: [+81-22-217-5476; +1-858-592-6009] E-mail:[{lawrence, shukato, sawahiro}@riec.tohoku.ac.jp; [email protected]]

Re: [Final Proposals in TG4k Closing Report (15-11-0538-00) 22 July, 2011]

Abstract: [This submission shows a comparison of proposed and existing channel models for TG4k. Recommended channel models are provided and their basis for selection.]

Purpose: [Provide this channel modeling information to the attention of TG4k for discussion, and see the differences of proposed and existing channel models.]

Notice: This document has been prepared to assist the IEEE P802.15. It is offered as a basis for discussion and is not binding on the contributing individual(s) or organization(s). The material in this document is subject to change in form and content after further study. The contributor(s) reserve(s) the right to add, amend or withdraw material contained herein.Release: The contributor acknowledges and accepts that this contribution becomes the property of IEEE and may be made publicly available by P802.15.

doc.: IEEE 802. 15-11-0571-00-004k

Submission Lawrence Materum, Shuzo Kato, and Hirokazu Sawada , RIEC

• Recommended channel models for the 802.15.4k 900 MHz band – Path loss: Okumura-Hata– Power delay profile: COST 207

• Recommended channel models for the 802.15.4k 2.4 GHz band – Path loss: COST 231-Hata and Erceg– Power delay profile: ITU-R IMT-Advanced

August 2011

Slide 2

Summary

doc.: IEEE 802. 15-11-0571-00-004k


Contents

1. Channel models for the 900 MHz band1.1 Path loss models1.2 Power delay profile models

2. Channel models for the 2.4 GHz band2.1 Path loss models2.2 Power delay profile models

• Conclusion• References

August 2011

Slide 3

doc.: IEEE 802. 15-11-0571-00-004k


1. Channel models for the 900 MHz

1.1 Path loss models

August 2011

Slide 4

doc.: IEEE 802. 15-11-0571-00-004k


Path loss model used/proposed

Transmission range

Applicability* (Y/N)

Tohoku Univ. (for LECIM) [1] Okumura-Hata 1 to 20 km Y

On-Ramp (for LECIM) [2] Okumura-Hata 1 to 20 km Y

802.15 TG4g (SUN) [3] n. a. n. a. N

802.11 TGah (Sub 1 GHz) [4] Modified 3GPP TR 36.814

Up to 5 km N

From Question ITU-R 250/5 in [5]

ITU-R P.1812 / P.1546

0.25 to 3000 km (P.1812)

1 to 1000 km (P.1546)

Y

August 2011

Slide 5

Path loss model comparison for the 900 MHz band

* In terms of the transmission range for 802.15.4k

doc.: IEEE 802. 15-11-0571-00-004k


August 2011

Slide 6

Path loss model comparison for TG4k:Okumura-Hata, P.1546-4, and P.1812-1

Okumura-Hata [6] ITU-R P.1546-4 [7] ITU-R P.1812-1 [8]

Frequency 150 MHz to 1.5 GHz 30 MHz to 3 GHz 30 MHz to 3 GHz

Transmission range

1 to 20 km 1 to 1000 km 0.25 to 3000 km

BS antenna height

30 to 200 m < 3000 m; interpolation for < 10 m

1 to 3000 m

MS antenna height

1 to 10 m; with correction factor

≥ 1 m and < 3000 m;with correction for

clutter height

1 to 3000 m

Environment Mid/Small Urban, Large Urban, Suburban,

Rural (Open)

Dense Urban, Urban, Suburban, Rural,

Warm Sea, Cold Sea, Mixed Land-Sea

Dense Urban, Urban/Trees,

Suburban, Open, Coastal, Sea

doc.: IEEE 802. 15-11-0571-00-004k


• ITU-R P.1546-4– Terrain database is optional (unneeded for detailed path loss calc.)– Includes: % time and % location variability, clutter ht. at the terminal– Unreciprocal BS and terminal designation

• ITU-R P.1812-1 (≈ ITU-R P.1546-4 + terrain profile)– Requires terrain database– Includes: % time and % location variability, building entry loss– Suggested to be used for system deployment

• Okumura-Hata– Straightforward calculation– Number of calculation steps: Okumura-Hata < P.1546-4 < P.1812-1

August 2011

Slide 7

Path loss model comparison:P.1546-4 is selected rather than P.1812-1

doc.: IEEE 802. 15-11-0571-00-004k


August 2011

Slide 8

For ITU-R P.1546-4 curves:• % loc. : path loss exceeded at % locations• 15 m clutter height at the terminal

Path loss comparison at 900 MHz

doc.: IEEE 802. 15-11-0571-00-004k


• Recommended path loss model for the 900 MHz band: Okumura-Hata– Close enough to the median path loss of P.1546-4 for the

intended transmission range– Path loss is easier to obtain for TG4k system simulations

• Okumura-Hata and P.1546-4– Similar from 1 to 10 km for the 50% loc. (curves are similar)– Okumura-Hata gives conservative median path loss estimate

August 2011

Slide 9

Okumura-Hata is recommended for TG4k

doc.: IEEE 802. 15-11-0571-00-004k


1. Channel models for the 900 MHz

1.2 Power delay profile models

August 2011

Slide 10

doc.: IEEE 802. 15-11-0571-00-004k


August 2011

Slide 11

Environment type comparison of the PDP models for the 900 MHz band

PDP model Environment types considered

Transmission range

Tohoku Univ. (for LECIM) [1]

COST 207 [9] Rural Area, Hilly Terrain, Typical Urban, Bad Urban

~10 km

802.15 TG4g (SUN) [3]

Two-path Rayleigh, and

COST 207 derivative

COST 207 derivative: ditto ~1 km

802.11 TGah (Sub 1 GHz) [4]

Modified 3GPP SCM Suburban Macrocell, Urban Macrocell, Urban Microcell

~1 km

doc.: IEEE 802. 15-11-0571-00-004k


• COST 207 is recommended for TG4k– Representative environment types are adequate for LECIM

applications– Different Doppler shifts can be assigned to each path

• The 2-path Rayleigh of TG4g might be oversimplified– Inference was based on one measured environment– Transmission range considered was limited (~1 km in TG4g PAR)

• The modified SCM of TGah may not be realistic– Assigning a higher Doppler to one of the paths may not be useful in

TG4k since the effective Doppler shift may not only come from one source—lacks rationale

– Limited to 1 km

August 2011

Slide 12

Recommended PDP model for the 900 MHz band: COST 207

doc.: IEEE 802. 15-11-0571-00-004k


2. Channel models for the 2.4 GHz band

2.1 Path loss models

August 2011

Slide 13

doc.: IEEE 802. 15-11-0571-00-004k


August 2011

Slide 14

Transmission range comparison of the path loss models for the 2.4 GHz band

* In terms of the transmission range for 802.15.4k

Path loss Transmission range Applicability* (Y/N)

Tohoku Univ. (for LECIM) [1] COST 231-Hata and Erceg

1 to 20 km (COST)0.01 to 8 km (Erceg)

Y

On-Ramp (for LECIM) [2] COST 231-Hata 1 to 20 km Y

802.15 TG4g (SUN) [3] n.a. n.a. N

From Question ITU-R 250/5 in [5]

ITU-R P.1812/P.1546 0.25 to 3000 km

(P.1812)1 to 1000 km

(P.1546)

Y

doc.: IEEE 802. 15-11-0571-00-004k


August 2011

Slide 15

Path loss model comparison: COST 231-Hata, Erceg, P.1546-4, and P.1812-1 (1)

COST 231-Hata [10] Erceg [11] ITU-R P.1546-4 [7] ITU-R P.1812-1 [8]Frequency 1.5 to 2 GHz 1.9 GHz 30 MHz to 3 GHz 30 MHz to 3 GHz

Transmission range

1 to 20 km 0.01 to 8 km 1 to 1000 km 0.25 to 3000 km

BS antenna height

30 to 200 m 10 to 80 m < 3000 m; interpolation for

< 10 m

1 to 3000 m

MS antenna height

1 to 10 m; with correction

factor

2 m height;correction for

2 to 10 m height

≥ 1 m and < 3000 m;with correction for

clutter height

1 to 3000 m

Environment Mid-urban and Suburban with

mid-foliage,Large Urban

Hilly, Mid-Hilly/Flat,

Flat

Dense Urban, Urban, Suburban, Rural,

Warm Sea, Cold Sea, Mixed Land-Sea

Dense Urban, Urban/Trees,

Suburban, Open, Coastal, Sea

doc.: IEEE 802. 15-11-0571-00-004k


August 2011

Slide 16

For ITU-R P.1546-4 curves:• % loc. : path loss exceeded at % locations• 15 m clutter height at the terminal

Path loss comparison at 2.4 GHz

doc.: IEEE 802. 15-11-0571-00-004k


August 2011

Slide 17

Path loss model comparison: COST 231-Hata and Erceg are recommended

• Recommended path loss models for 2.4 GHz band: – COST 231-Hata for 30-200 m BS antenna height – Erceg for 10-80 m BS antenna height, 8 km range– COST 231-Hata and Erceg are practically equivalent to the median path

loss of ITU-R P.1546-4—both are simpler to calculate than P.1546-4 • COST 231-Hata and P.1546-4

– Similar from 1 to 8 km for the 50% loc.– 8 to 20 km: COST 231-Hata gives conservative median path loss est.– COST 231-Hata PL is much easier to get for TG4k system simulations

• Erceg and P.1546-4: – Variation in Erceg covers the % locs. of P.1546-4

doc.: IEEE 802. 15-11-0571-00-004k


2. Channel models for the 2.4 GHz band

2.2 Power delay profile models

August 2011

Slide 18

doc.: IEEE 802. 15-11-0571-00-004k


August 2011

Slide 19

Environment type comparison of the PDP models for the 2.4 GHz band

PDP model used/proposed

Environment types considered

Transmission range

Tohoku Univ. (for LECIM) [1]

ITU-R IMT-Advanced [12]

Urban Macrocell, Urban Microcell, Indoor Hotspot,

Suburban Macrocell, Rural Macrocell

~5 km

802.15 TG4g (SUN) [3]

Two-path Rayleigh, and COST 207 derivative

Rural Area, Typical Urban,

Bad Urban, Hilly Terrain

~1 km

(802.11 TGah) 3GPP SCM (per se applies to 2.4 GHz,

though TGah is below 1 GHz)

Suburban Macrocell, Urban Macrocell, Urban Microcell

~1 km

doc.: IEEE 802. 15-11-0571-00-004k


• ITU-R IMT-Advanced is recommended for TG4k– Representative environment types are good enough for LECIM

applications since DEV environment may be similar to mobile surroundings

– Range is up to ~5 km, and Doppler can be separately assigned to each tap

– Condition: need to verify/measure the channel characteristics in real situations

• The 2-path Rayleigh of TG4g might be oversimplified– Inference was based on one measured environment– Transmission range considered was limited (up to ~1km in PAR)

• Modified SCM of TGah lacks rationale

August 2011

Slide 20

Recommended power delay profile model for the 2.4 GHz band: ITU-R IMT-Advanced

doc.: IEEE 802. 15-11-0571-00-004k


• Recommended models for the 900 MHz band – Path loss: Okumura-Hata– PDP: COST 207

• Recommended models for the 2.4 GHz band – Path loss: COST 231-Hata and Erceg– PDP: ITU-R IMT-Advanced

• It is recommended to verify/measure the two PDPs mentioned above in real situations—(transmission range extrapolation for ~16 km may not be 100% correct)

August 2011

Slide 21

Conclusion

doc.: IEEE 802. 15-11-0571-00-004k


References[1] L. Materum, H. Sawada, and S. Kato, “Path loss and power delay profile models for 802.15 TG4k,” IEEE 802.15-11-0507-00-004k, Jul. 2011.[2] S. Dey, “802.15.4k LECIM channel characteristics,” IEEE 802.15-11-0465-00-004k, Jul. 2011.[3] E. Monnerie, G. Flammer, S. Shearer, S. Shimada, and C. Powell, “Channel characterization for SUN,” IEEE 802.15-09-0279-01-004g, Jul. 2009.[4] R. Porat and S. K. Yong, “TGah channel model proposed text,” IEEE 802.11-11/0968r1, Jul. 2011.[5] P. Kinney, “Task Group 15.4k Minutes,” IEEE 802.15-11-0557-01-004k, Jul. 2011.[6] M. Hata, “Empirical formula for propagation loss in land mobile radio services,” IEEE Trans. Veh.

Technol., vol. 29, pp. 317–325, Aug. 1980.[7] ITU-R, “Method for point-to-area predictions for terrestrial services in the frequency range 30 MHz to 3000 MHz,” Recommendation ITU-R P.1546-4, Oct. 2009.[8] ITU-R, “A path-specific propagation prediction method for point-to-area terrestrial services in the VHF and UHF bands,” Recommendation ITU-R P. P.1812-1, Oct. 2009.[9] M. Failli, Ed., COST 207–Digital Land Mobile Radio Communications. Luxembourg:

European Communities, 1989.[10] E. Damosso and L. M. Correia, Eds., COST Action 231–Digital Mobile Radio Towards Future

Generation Systems. Luxembourg: European Communities, 1999.[11] V. Erceg et al., “An empirically based path loss model for wireless channels in suburban

environments,” IEEE J. Sel. Areas Commun., vol. 17, pp. 1205–1211, Jul. 1999.[12] ITU-R, “Guidelines for evaluation of radio interface technologies for IMT-Advanced,” Rep. ITU-R

M.2135-1, Dec. 2009.

August 2011

Slide 22

Doc.: IEEE 802. 15-11-0571-00-004k Submission August 2011 Lawrence Materum, Shuzo Kato, and Hirokazu...

Documents

Transcript of Doc.: IEEE 802. 15-11-0571-00-004k Submission August 2011 Lawrence Materum, Shuzo Kato, and Hirokazu...