Estimating Coverage of Radio Transmission into and within Buildings
for Line of sight visibility between two points in terrain by Linear
Prediction Filter
Jamal Fathi Abu Hasna
jfathi@neu.edu.tr
Electrical & Electronics Engineering Department, Near East University, Cyprus, Turkey via Mersin-10,
KKTC
Keywords
Signal Strength, Network Measurement Report (NMR),
Multi-path, Base Transceiver Station (BTS), Linear
Prediction Filter.
Abstract
Investigations of propagation into and within buildings
at 900, and 1800 MHz have been undertaken, using
buildings in the Near East University of Cyprus The
emphasis of this article is the modeling of radio
transmission into buildings that uses the measured
penetration loss values in order to adjust the
propagation models developed for the outside areas,
and the modeling of radio transmission within
buildings, starting with the simple distance-power law,
then applying Linear Prediction filter to the received
signals.
I. Introduction
A physical understanding and consequent mathematical
modeling of the radio propagation inside buildings is
very important because it facilitates a more accurate
prediction of system performance and provides the
mechanism to test and evaluate methods for mitigating
the deleterious effects caused by the radio channel in
such environments.
This article reports the results of narrowband
measurements into buildings at 900, and 1800 MHz,
with the transmitter located on the roof of one building
and the receiver located in a different building. It also
describes measurements that have been undertaken with
both transmitter and receiver situated within the same
building. These latter measurements are classified as
propagation within buildings. The experiments were
conducted in order to determine statistics related to the
random variation of a continuous wave (CW) signal
received in indoor environments [1–3]. Empirical
models which allow the path loss between the
transmitting and receiving antennas to be predicted
have also been developed and are presented in this
article. This additional loss will depend on a large
number of factors with various degrees of importance.
Among them are the transmission frequencies, the
distance between the transmitter and receiver, the
building construction material, and the nature of the
surrounding buildings. Several researchers have studied the
problem of receiving radio signals inside buildings and
model it as the distance dependency of the path loss when
the mobile is outside a building, plus a building loss factor.
The building loss factor is included in the model to account
for the increase in attenuation of the received signal
observed when the mobile is moved from outside a
building to inside. This model was first proposed by Rice
[9] in 1959, also Antonio Fischer De Toledo [4] in 1998,
and has been used in most subsequent investigations.
In addition to penetration loss, system designers are also
interested in learning about the received signal variability
and the effects of building height, conditions of
transmission, construction materials, and frequency of
operation. Several research activities that deal with these
aspects have been reported in the literature [1, 3, 9–11].
II. Measurement Results
a) Into Building Experiments
The tests were undertaken using a fixed base station
transmitter and a mobile receiver. The signal transmitted
from the base station was received using a purpose-built
data logging system, which was moved around the
building. The base station consisted of a CW transmitter
feeding a collinear antenna, raised clear of local
obstructions. It produced an effective radiated power
(ERP) of 29 dBm at 900 MHz and 24 dBm at 1.8 GHz. A
vertically polarized omni-directional antenna was also used
at the mobile, with a ground plane 1.65 m above the floor.
Each sample of data collected in a particular room in the
building was normalized by the average signal strength
within that room. The normalized data for each room were
then collated to form a data file consisting of fast fading
only. The distribution of this component describes the
small-scale signal variations. The local mean was
estimated by averaging the signal strength over 200
samples symmetrically adjacent to every point (i.e., the
process known as moving average). The large-scale signal
distribution was determined by testing the departure (in
decibels) of the average signal strength of each room from
the average signal strength for the whole building. The
inside average signal strength was determined for each
room of the buildings measured. Outside signal strength
was measured at street level around the perimeter of the university are presented in Tables 2 and 3.
building, along the closest available path to the
14 13
building’s outside walls.
Fifteen tests were conducted in the Near University of
Cyprus in order to assess the effect of transmission 5
condition on signals propagating into buildings at 900,
1800 MHz in different buildings of the university to 7
examine the values of penetration loss at ground-floor
level at 1800 MHz only. The two distinct regions where
penetration loss measurements, at ground-floor level, 8
took place can be characterized as a highly built-up area 4
(i.e., the Medical Department) and a medium built-up
area (i.e., the Electrical & Electronics and Computer 9
3
Engineering Department). Two different locations for
the transmitter were selected for each area. For the first
set of trials (i.e., the Medical Department), the 2
transmitter was located on the roof of the Medical 10
Department (TX1), which is approximately 5 floors 12
1 TX2
high. For the second set of measurements in the
Engineering Department which is 4 floors high TX1
including Innovation and Information Technologies, as
shown in Fig. 1, the transmitter was set up on the roof
6
of the Engineering Department (TX2), which is
approximately 20 m high. Fifteen experiments were 11
conducted for each transmitter location.
15
The 10 buildings selected in the university precinct for
the 20 penetration loss tests are described in Table 1, Figure 1. Relative position of the building tested for penetration
and their relative position appears in Fig. 1. 1800 MHz loss in the university.
are described in Table 1; the relative position of the
buildings is presented in Fig. 1. Electrical Engineering, Table 1. General Description of the Engineering
four floors, 20 m high, floor area of 600m2, steel- Department buildings in the University
framed construction with offices, large laboratories, Building Address Front of Ground Floor
lecture and research rooms, 2×3 glass windows, Building
looking to the Medical Department, and large glass Innovation and E E & C Front Glass Large open area, 4 U
entrance. Offices on all floors of all buildings were Information Engineering Wall shape large corridors,
Technologies Under ground floor,
crowded with typical office furniture and the teaching
Centre 5 annex structures, 3
or research laboratories contained experimental labs, and 5 lecture
equipment according to the specialized demand of each halls.
area of study, and The Near East University Techno Computer CE Front Glass Large open area, 1 U
Park which is the complex that will host the joint Wall shape large corridor,
Engineering
28 rooms, including
venture between Near East University and IBM (NEU labs and research
Innovation and Information Technologies Centre). The rooms.
center’s primary objective is to carry out research, Electrical EE Front Glass Large open area, 1 U
development and innovation. The Innovation and Wall shape large corridor,
Engineering 28 rooms, including
Information Technologies Center is the only one found labs and research
in the region and this includes the following regions rooms.
collectively. Eastern Europe, the Middle East, Central Mechanical ME Front Glass Large open area, 1 U
Asia and Northern Africa. The new super computer Engineering Wall shape large corridor,
28 rooms, including
with its advance platform is ranked 76th in the world, labs and research
13th within certain nations and is ranked 10th amongst rooms.
the other universities in the world.
In the experiments conducted in the university, the average
b) Penetration Loss at Ground-Floor Level values of penetration loss at ground-floor level were found
The mean signal levels outside and inside buildings at to be significantly different (20.39 dB and 17.4 dB) for the
ground floor level and the mean value of penetration two transmitter locations. This difference (i.e.,
loss for the two experiments carried out in the approximately 2.99 dB) was due to the Internet receiver
dish mounted on the roof of the Engineering Toledo and Turkmani [19] have obtained direct modeling
department. The two sets of fields trials yielded an of propagation into buildings at 900, 1800, and 2300 MHz.
average value of penetration loss equal to 18.8957 dB. The latter have performed the prediction using information
In the university there were important changes in the relative based on what might be termed incomplete data. Such
position of the transmitter concerning the measured buildings, information may have an element of uncertainty and a risk
were changed. of being incorrect. Using appropriate statistical techniques,
However, it is necessary to remember that the validity it was possible to generalize from a given set of data to a
of most outdoor propagation models, such as those of more broadly applicable statement, and for that purpose
Okumura [4], Hata [16] and Ibrahim [17, 18], have specific and rigorous techniques have been applied in order
been developed for large cells, whereas for personal to estimate the degree of uncertainty. Details of the
communication the suitable cell diameter is often less statistical techniques applied can be found in [19] and a
than 700 m. full description in [1]. Propagation into (and within)
buildings involves a more complex multipath structure
Table 2. General Description of the Medical than that of the outdoor land-mobile radio channel, which
Department buildings in the University is dependent on path length, effective base station antenna
Building Ad Front of Ground Floor height, and the environment local to the mobile. In addition
Building
to these variables, indoor propagation is also affected by
Reception and M Front Large open area, 2 L shapes
First Aid C Glass Wall large corridors, annexes other empirically observed variables such as building
Department structures, 18 rooms, and 7 structure and layout of the rooms. After collating all the
Offices. survey measurements in the university precinct buildings
and investigating the relationships between a large number
General M Front Large open area, 2 U shape of variables, the best of all results, for the into building
Surgery C Glass Wall large corridors, 18 rooms,
Department including labs and Operation case, was obtained when three variables were present in the
rooms. regression equations: the logarithm of the distance, d, the
Pregnancy M Front Large open area, 2 T shape logarithm of the floor area, Af, and the number of building
Department C Glass Wall large corridors, 18 rooms, sides seen by the transmitter on each floor of the building
including labs, Operation
rooms, and First aid room. housing the receiver, SQ The resulting models for the path
Offices M Front Large open area, 1 U shape loss, at 900, and 1800 MHz, were found to be
^
C Glass Wall large corridor, 28 rooms, Y i,900 = –37.7 + 40.0log10d + 17.6log10Af– 27.5SQ (1)
including labs and research
rooms.
Yi,1800 = –27.9 + 40.0log10d + 23.3 log10Af– 20.9SQ (2)
with the root mean square errors (RMSEs) equal to 2.07,
and 1.96 dB, respectively.
Table 3. Penetration Loss in the University
Rx Out Grou Pen. Out Grou Pen. III. Linear Prediction Filter Coefficients
Loca dBm dBm Loss dBm dBm Loss The signal data as the output of an autoregressive process
Innov -88.72 -101.35 12.63 -91.37 -104.4 13.03 driven by white noise. Use the last 4096 samples of the AR
Cafete -78.82 -100.63 21.81 -83.21 -109.24 25.87 process output to avoid start-up transients. The prediction
Comp -72.29 -99.27 26.98 -86.21 -105.97 19.76 error, e(n), can be viewed as the output of the prediction
EE -85.35 -102.09 16.74 -86.21 -107.06 20.85 error filter A(z) shown Fig 2, where H(z) is the optimal
ME -68.01 -91.84 23.83 -77.54 -92.27 14.73 linear predictor, x(n) is the input signal, and p is the order
Dek -66.05 -90.07 24.02 -74.37 91.42 17.05 of the prediction filter polynomial, a = [1 a(2) ... a(p+1)], p
Secr -70.14 -86.87 16.73 -85.26 95.82 10.56
= length(x)-1, estimate for each column in the rows of
Aver -75.62 -96.01 20.39 -83.45 -100.88 17.4
matrix a and a row vector of prediction error variances g.
Therefore, those models cannot be fully trusted when 
x(n)
x (-n) e(n)
used for the indoor environment without further -1 -2 -p
H(z)=-a(2)Z –a(3)Z - ..a(n+1)Z
investigations. In addition, predicting first the signal
outside the building of interest and then, from that +
result, determining the signals inside the building leads
A(Z)
to an inevitable reduction in accuracy. Therefore,
prediction of the path loss for radio transmissions into Figure 2. Prediction Error Block Diagram
buildings may be more accurate if it has been
undertaken directly and not merely as an extension of The autocorrelation method of autoregressive (AR)
outdoor propagation models. A similar approach was modeling to find the filter coefficients. The generated filter
adopted by Barry and Williamson [3] to analyze might not model the process exactly even if the data
measurements undertaken in New Zealand at 851 MHz. sequence is truly an AR process of the correct order. This
is because the autocorrelation method implicitly is biased. The MSE for the biased predictor is
windows the data, that is, it assumes that signal samples
beyond the length of x are 0.
 
E  2  E p  p̂  , the value of MSE for the biased
2

Xa  b predictor can be determined. For complete prediction,

when E    E  p  pˆ   0 , that means p  pˆ for
2 2


1  1  obtaining zero error.

 x(1) 0  0 
 x(2) x(1)    a (2)  0
 ,
a   , b    V. Line of Sight Visibility between two Points in
 x(2) 0   
    Terrain
X   x( m)   x(1)      To compute the mutual visibility between two points on a
0 x (m)  x (2)  a ( p  1)  0 displayed digital elevation map. The current object if it is a
 
     regular matrix map or the first regular matrix map found on
 0  0 x (m )  the current axes. The map's zdata is used for the profile.
 
The color data is used in the absence of data in z. The two
and m is the length of x. Solving the least squares points are selected by clicking on the map. The result is
problem via the normal equations displayed in a new figure. Markers indicate visible and
obscured points along the profile. The profile is shown in a
X H Xa  X H b
Cartesian coordinate system with the origin at the
leads to the Yule-Walker equations
observer's location. The displayed z coordinates accounts
for the elevation of the terrain and the curvature of the
 r (1) r (2)  r ( p )   a(2)  body. The elevations are provided as a regular matrix map
    a(3)  containing elevations in units of meters. The two points are
 r (2) r (1)  r (2)    provided as vectors of latitudes and longitudes in units of
   r (2)    degrees. The resulting logical variable vis is equal to one
    when the two points are visible to each other, and zero
 r ( p)  r (2) r (1)   a( p  1)  when the line of sight is obscured by terrain. As shown in
Fig. 4.
 r (2)  The prediction error is approximately white Gaussian
 r (3)  noise, as expected for a third-order AR input process.
 
  Original Signal vs. LPC Estimate
  6
 r ( p  1)  4
Original Signal
LPC Estimate
Amplitude

2
where r = [r(1) r(2) ... r(p+1)] is an autocorrelation
estimate for x computed using xcorr. The Yule-Walker 0
equations are solved in o(p2) flops by the Levinson- -2
Durbin algorithm [20] as shown in Fig. 3.
-4
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
IV. Prediction of Channel Power Sample Number
Autocorrelation of the Prediction Error
1
At instant k, the receiver selects a transmit antenna
Normalized Value

N 2
ˆi 
based on the predicted channel power: p  hˆj 1
ij
0.5

j=1 and picks antenna i corresponding to maximum 0

power gain with Known pilot symbols are transmitted

from each antenna pˆ max  max  i  N t pˆ i . The   -0.5
-5000 -4000 -3000 -2000 -1000 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000
Lags
average channel power gain is E pi  N r    2
h, and
the average predicted power gain is Figure 3. Autocorrelation of the Prediction Error Signal.
E pi   N r  h2  N r rwH Rw1 rw . Note the average
 2 H
value of the error E   N r ( k  rw R w rw while
1

predicting power is not zero, thus the power prediction


0
-1000
Vertical Distance from Observer
-2000
-3000
-4000
-5000
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000
Horizontal Distance from Observer
Figure 4. The visibility between two points on the
peaks map.
VI. Conclusion
This article contains the results of investigation and
modeling of radio propagation at 900, and 1800 MHz
for the into and within building scenarios.
Measurements of signal strength and signal variability
have been made using buildings within the University
of Near East in Cyprus.
The article also includes linear prediction filter for Line
of sight visibility between two points in terrain.
It is interesting to observe that the Barry and
Williamson models, derived from experiments carried
out in Auckland, New Zealand, yielded slightly worse
values of RMSEs: 3.9 dB for the line of sight case, and
7.2 dB for the obstructed path case [3], and also ANTONIO
FISCHER DE Toledo models carried out in the
University of Liverpool of RMSEs: 2.4, and 2.2 dB.
Thus, predicting propagation path loss using the models
presented in this article should produce more precise
results.
VII. References
[1] A. F. Toledo, “Narrowband Characterization of
Radio Transmissions into and within Buildings at 900,
1800, and 2300 MHz,” Ph.D. thesis, Dept. Elec. Eng.
and Electron., Univ. of Liverpool, U.K., May 1992.
[2] A. M. D. Turkmani, “The Mobile Radio Channel,”
Ch. 3, Personal Communication Systems and
Technologies, J. Gardiner and B. West, Eds., Artech
House, 1995.
[3] P. J. Barry and A. G. Williamson, “Statistical Model
for UHF Radio-wave Signals within Externally
Illuminated Multistory Buildings,” IEE Proc. —Part I,
Aug. 1991, vol. 138, no. 4, pp. 307–18.
[4] Y. Okumura et al., “Field Strength and Its
Variability in VHF and UHF Land Mobile Radio Service,”
Rev. Elec. Commun. Lab., 1968, 16, pp. 825–73.
Terrain [5] K. Allsebrook and J. D. Parsons, “Mobile Radio
Visible Propagation in British Cities at Frequencies in the VHF
Obscured
Observer
and UHF Bands,” IEEE Trans., 1977, vol. VT-26, no. 4,
Line of Sight pp. 313–23.
[6] D. C. Cox, R. R. Murray, and A. W. Norris,
“Measurements of 800 MHz Radio Transmission into
Buildings with Metallic Walls,” Bell Sys. Tech. J., 1983,
62, no. 9, pp. 2695–2717.
[7] A. M. D. Turkmani and A. F. Toledo, “Radio
Transmission at 1800 MHz into and within Multistory
Buildings,” IEE Proc. — Part I, vol. 138, no. 6, Dec. 1991,
pp. 577–584.
[8] A. F. Toledo and A. M. D. Turkmani, “Propagation into
and within Buildings at 900, 1800 and 2300 MHz,” Proc.
42nd IEEE VTC, Denver, CO, May 1992, pp. 633–36.
6000 7000
[9] L. P. Rice, “Radio Transmission into Buildings at 35
and 150 MHz,” Bell Sys. Tech. J., 1959, 38, no. 1, pp. 197–
210.
[10] J. M. Durante, “Building Penetration Loss at 900
MHz,” Proc. IEEE VTC., 1973, pp. 1–7.
[11] A. M. D. Turkmani, J. D. Parsons, and D. G. Lewis,
“Measurement of Building Penetration Loss on Radio
Signals at 441, 900 and 1400 MHz,” J. IERE, vol. 58, no. 6
(supp.), 1988, pp. S169–74.
[12] S. E. Alexander, “Radio Propagation within Buildings
at 900 MHz,” Elect. Lett., 18, no. 21, 1982, pp. 913–14.
[13] A. J. Motley and J. M. P. Keenan, “Personal
Communication Radio Coverage in Buildings at 900 MHz
and 1700 MHz,” Elect. Lett., 9 June 1988, 24, no. 12, pp.
763–64.
[14] D. C. Cox, “Universal Digital Portable Radio
Communications,” Proc. IEEE, 1987, 75, no. 4, pp. 436–
77.
[15] T. S. Rappaport, “Wireless Communications –
Principles and Practice,” IEEE/Prentice Hall, 1996, pp.
102–10.
[16] M. Hata, “Empirical Formula for Propagation Loss in
Land Mobile Radio Services,” IEEE Trans., 1980, VT-29,
no. 3, pp. 317–25.
[17] M. F. Ibrahim and J. D. Parsons, “Signal Strength
Prediction in Built-Up Areas, Part 1: Median Signal
Strength,” Proc. IEE, Part F, 130, no. 5, 1983, pp. 377–84.
[18] J. D. Parsons, The Mobile Radio Propagation
Channel, Pentech Press, 1992.
[19] A. M. D. Turkmani and A. F. Toledo, “Modeling of
Radio Transmissions into and within Multistory Buildings
at 900, 1800 and 2300 MHz,” IEE Proc. — Part I, vol.
140, no. 6, Dec. 1993, pp. 462–70.
[20] Jackson, L.B., Digital Filters and Signal Publishers,
1989. pp. 255-257.Processing, Second.