Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
Responsible Editor:
Ren Wahl AWE Communications GmbH Otto-Lilienthal-Str. 36 D-71034 Bblingen Phone: +49 70 31 71 49 7 - 21 Fax: +49 70 31 71 49 7 - 12 Rene.Wahl@AWE-Communications.com
Changes First version of document Update due to a new release of the IDP (Version 2.0)
1 Motivation
Ray-optical propagation models are still very time-consuming even with accelerations like preprocessing. And what is even more important, they rely on a very accurate vector database. Small errors in the database influence the accuracy of the prediction. On the other hand, empirical models rely on dedicated propagation effects (for example the direct ray (COST 231 Multi Wall). A comparison of different prediction models is presented in figure 1-1.
Figure 1-1: Predictions with COST 231 Multi Wall (left), Ray Tracing (center) and Indoor Dominant Path Model (right).
Analyzing typical propagation scenarios shows that in most cases one propagation path contributes more than 90% (in linear scale) of the total energy (see figure 1-2). The DPM (Dominant Path Model) determines exactly this dominant path between the transmitter and each receiver pixel. So the computation time compared to ray tracing is reduced significantly and the accuracy is nearly identical to ray tracing [3].
Figure 1-2: Typical Channel Impulse Response
T R
T R
T R
Figure 1-3: Comparison of different propagation methods (empirical model, ray-optical model and Dominant Path Model)
Empirical models (like COST 231 model) consider only the direct path between a transmitter and a receiver pixel (left part of figure 1-3). Ray Tracing models (like IRT, figure 1-3 middle) determine numerous paths. As shown in figure 1-3 on the right, DPM determines only the most relevant path, which leads to short computation times.
November 2006
As a consequence of the above mentioned properties and restrictions of the available prediction models, a new Propagation Model has been developed, the Dominant Path Prediction Model (DPM). The main characteristics of this model: The dependency on the accuracy of the vector database is reduced (compared to ray tracing). Only the most important propagation path is considered, because this path delivers the main part of the energy. No time-consuming preprocessing is required (in contrast to IRT). Short computation times. Accuracy reaches or exceeds the accuracy of ray-optical models. The Dominant Path Model offers different sub models for several applications. The sub models are: IDP: Indoor Dominant Path Model for indoor scenarios UDP: Urban Dominant Path Model for urban scenarios RDP: Rural Dominant Path Model for rural scenarios In this document the Indoor Dominant Path Model (IDP) is described. Documents about UDP and RDP are available on the website of AWE Communications (http://www.awecommunications.com). Figures 1-4 and 1-5 present some predictions with the sub models UDP and RDP(only for information).
Figure 1-4: Predictions with Urban Dominant Path Model (UDP): Area of Hong Kong (left) and Manhattan (right).
Figure 1-5: Predictions with Rural Dominant Path Model (RDP): Mountain Matterhorn (Switzerland) with some propagation paths (left) and a part of the Grand Canyon (USA) (right).
November 2006
E = 104.77
m dBV 1 c d n 10 p log f ( , i) t j + wk + gt + pt c k =0 m m i =0 j =0
The definition of the parameters : d p f(,i) tj wk gt pt Distance (along the path) between transmitter and current receiver pixel Path loss exponent, depending on the current propagation situation Function for individual attenuation for each interaction i of all n interactions Transmission (penetration) loss for each penetration j through a wall Gain caused by waveguiding for each pixel along one propagation path Directional gain of transmitting antenna in direction of propagation path Power of transmitter in dBm
As described above, d is the length of the path between transmitter and current receiver pixel. p is the path loss exponent. The value of p depends upon the current propagation situation. In buildings with a lot of furniture p = 2.4 is used, whereas in empty halls p = 2.0 is suggested. The function f yields the loss (in dB) which is caused by a diffraction. All diffraction losses are accumulated along one propagation path. The transmission (penetration) losses tj are also accumulated along the one propagation path, as well as the waveguiding effects. Waveguiding occurs if the wave propagates through a long corridor and reflections on the walls appear (see next section). In this case an additional waveguiding gain wk in dB is determined and accumulated along all pixels on the current propagation path. The directional gain of the antenna gt (in direction of the propagation path) and the power pt are also considered in the equation. Some examples for predictions with the IDP are shown in figure 2-1.
Figure 2-1: Several applications for the Indoor Dominant Path Model: Combined Indoor/Urban prediction (left), prediction inside the front part of a car (middle) and prediction inside a tunnel (right).
November 2006
3 Features
The IDP offers several features which are designed to yield very accurate prediction results. In the following sections these features are described.
3.1 Waveguiding
The IDP considers diffractions and transmissions explicitly. Reflections and scattering are included empirically. To consider reflections (and scattering), an empirically determined waveguiding factor is introduced. This waveguiding factor takes into account, that a wave propagating in a long corridor, will be reflected on the walls leading to less attenuation compared to free space. Thus, waveguiding effects can be expressed as an additional gain in dB. The gain due to waveguiding for a building is shown in figure Figure 3-1: The gain in dB caused by waveguiding 3-1.
LOS area
Interaction
OLOS area
LOS: Line-of-Sight between transmitter and Penetration Penetration receiver. through through OLOS (obstructed LOS): transmitter and a wall a wall receiver are located in the same room and the path needs no penetration of a wall but there is no line of sight between NLOS transmitter and receiver area NLOS (non-LOS): At least one penetration through a wall is required between transmitter and receiver. Figure 3-2: Several propagation modes. For each mode a different path loss exponent can be defined and is considered in the computation. Different path loss exponents are suggested, because the electromagnetic wave is distorted after multiple interactions or transmissions and thus it will be higher attenuated, which can be expressed with an increased path loss exponent. Suggested values for the different modes are: LOS OLOS NLOS 2.0 to 2.2 2.1 to 2.3 2.3 to 2.5
November 2006
November 2006
4 Configuration
Important for accurate prediction results is the configuration of the prediction model. The configuration of IDP is described in detail in this chapter.
Figure 4-1: Predictions with different path loss exponents for LOS area (left: 2.0, center: 2.3, right: 2.6).
Figure 4-1 shows a comparison of predictions with different path loss values for the LOS area.
In figure 4-2 the function for the determination of the attenuation depending on the angle is depicted. As shown in the figure, the attenuation increases linearly until an angle 1 is reached. Beyond this angle, the attenuation is constant at its maximum value 2. The maximum value 2 can be defined in the settings dialog (1 and 1 are determined automatically).
1 1 2
November 2006
3D Mode: The IDP activates automatically the 3D mode, if transmitter and prediction height are not on one floor or several prediction heights are entered by the user. An additional layer is automatically inserted on the height of the transmitter. This is always done in 3D mode. The additional layer is colored green in figure 4-4. Fig. 4-4 shows a typical multifloor scenario. The blue colored prediction layers are entered by the user in the prediction heights edit box in ProMan. Possible propagation paths are the red polylines. Another example for the 3D mode is Figure 4-4: Scenario with 3D mode. presented in figure 4-5. Here the IDP chooses automatically the 2D mode, as both transmitter and prediction height are on the same floor. So only one layer would be used for the prediction and there would be no opportunity for a wave propagation over the obstacle, so the predicted field strength would be too pessimistic behind the black obstacle. Because of that it is recommended to insert additional prediction heights, if obstacles are available in a floor. After insertion of a prediction layer in 3.5m height, the wave can propagate over the obstacle (see red propagation path). Figure 4-5: Scenario with 3D mode.
November 2006
5 Examples
To demonstrate the performance of IDP, some comparisons to measurements are presented in this chapter. Further comparisons to measurements can be found on the website of AWE Communications (http://www.awe-communications.com).
Figure 5-1: Typical modern office block (left) and the database of the building (right).
In this scenario several measurements with different transmitter locations have been accomplished. In each case the transmitter was located on a height of 0.9 m, its power was 20 dBm and the frequency was set to 1800 MHz. A prediction for a transmitter location and the difference between prediction and measurement is shown in figure 5-2.
Figure 5-2: Prediction for transmitter location 12 (left) and difference (prediction-measurement) (right).
November 2006
The statistical evaluation of the differences for seven transmitters and the corresponding measurements are shown in table 5-1. In all cases the standard deviations are about 4 or 5 dB and the mean values are below 4 dB.
Figure 5-3: Typical historical building (left) and the corresponding database (right).
Measurements with several different transmitter locations were carried out [1]. Each time, the antenna height was 1.60 m, the power was 1 Watt and the frequency 1800 MHz. In figure 5-4 the result of the prediction for a transmitter is shown, as well as the difference to the measurements.
Figure 5-4: Prediction for transmitter location 0 (left) and difference (prediction-measurement).
November 2006
10
The statistical evaluation of the differences for two transmitters and the corresponding measurements is shown in table 5-2.
6 Further Information
For further information you are invited to visit AWE Communications website
http://www.awe-communications.com
or to send an e-mail at the responsible editor of this document
rene.wahl@awe-communications.com
7 References
[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] R. Gahleitner: Radio Wave Propagation in and into Urban Buildings, PhD thesis, University of Vienna, 1994 G. Wlfle: Adaptive Modelle zur Funknetzplanung und zur Berechnung der Empfangsqualitt in Gebuden, PhD thesis, University of Stuttgart, 1999 G. Wlfle, R. Wahl, P. Wildbolz, P. Wertz: Dominant Path Prediction Model for Indoor and Urban Scenarios, 11th COST 273 MCM, Duisburg (Germany), Sep. 2004 G. Wlfle, R. Wahl, P. Wertz, P. Wildbolz, F. Landstorfer: Dominant Path Prediction Model for Indoor Scenarios, German Microwave Conference (GeMIC) 2005, Ulm (Germany), April 2005 R. Wahl, G. Wlfle: Combined Urban and Indoor Radio Network Planning using the Dominant Path Propagation Model, 1st European Conference on Antennas and Propagation, Nice, France, Nov. 2006
November 2006