RF Path Loss & Transmission Distance Calculations

By

Walter Debus
Director of Engineering
Axonn, LLC

Technical Memorandum
August 4, 2006
 DOC# 8545-0003-01
INTRODUCTION

For radio transmission systems that consist of at least one transmitter, plus trans/ceiver antennas and at least one receiver
there are two questions that inevitably get asked. The questions are: how far apart can the transmitter and receiver be in
distance while maintaining acceptable performance, and what can be changed to increase this separation distance? The
simplistic answers to these questions are: use the Free Space Path Loss model in determining trans/ceiver separation, and
change the transmitter power to increase separation distance. While these two assumptions work under restricted conditions,
in general they are overly optimistic for most situations. This paper presents mathematical transmission models that
represent more realistic transmission systems. Furthermore, a better understanding as to what can be changed in the system
that result in greater transmission distance. In addition, measured field data is presented that supports the realistic math
models.

A typical RF transmission system is shown in Figure 1. The received signal strength (link budget) in Figure 1 is equal to:

(1) R = Pt + Gtot – L

For a known receiver sensitivity value, the maximum path loss can be derived as shown in (2).

(2) L = Pt + Gtot – R

Example: for Pt = 39 dBm, Gtot = 7.5 dB, R = -95 dBm; the path loss can not exceed L ≈142 dB without violating the receiver
sensitivity.

PATH LOSS AND DISTANCE CALCULATIONS

Path Loss is the largest and most variable quantity in the link budget. It depends on frequency, antenna height, receive
terminal location relative to obstacles and reflectors, and link distance, among many other factors. Usually a statistical path
loss model or prediction program is used to estimate the median propagation loss in dB. The estimate takes into account the
situation - - line of sight (LOS) or non-LOS - -and general terrain and environment using more or less detail, depending on
the particular model. For example, (3) is the Free Space loss model which only takes into consideration distance and
frequency. Hence, this model is very limited in its ability to accurately predict path loss in most environments.

(3) Lfs = 32.45 + 20Log10(dkm) +20Log10(fMHz)

By rearranging terms in (3) the maximum distance can be calculated. For instance, using the example above with a Path Loss
of 142 dB and assuming f MHz = 2350, the maximum distance that can be achieved assuming free space path loss is:

(4) dfs = antiLog10[{142 -32.45 -20Log10(2350)}/20] ≈ 121 km.

The distance of 121 km can only be achieved under the most optimistic case of LOS with absolutely no other types of
distortion or reflections occurring.

The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) have done an excellent job in documenting and comparing
several realistic empirical propagation loss models. Based on the NIST study, the remainder of this document examines the
following loss models:

• Free Space Model

• CCIR Model
• Hata Models
• Walfisch-Ikegami Models (WIM)

Figure 2 shows the numerous physical environment variables used to some degree by each of the above models in calculating
path loss. Subsequently each loss model will be discussed more fully.

FREE SPACE PATH LOSS MODEL (Lfs) - The Lfs equation is shown in (3). Substituting (3) into (1) and then solving for
distance yields the maximum distance equation for Free-space shown in (4).

1
 DOC# 8545-0003-01
CCIR PATH LOSS MODEL (Lccir) - An empirical formula for the combined effects of free-space path loss and terrain-
induced path loss was published by the CCIR (Comite' Consultatif International des Radio-Communication, now ITU-R) and
is given by:

(5) Lccir = 69.55 + 26.16Log10(fMHz) -13.82Log10(hb) – a(hm) + [44.9-6.55Log10(hb)]Log10(dkm) – B

Where:
a(hm) = [1.1Log10(fMHz)-0.7]hm – [1.56Log10(fMhz)-0.8]

B = 30 – 25Log10(% of area covered by buildings)

Substituting (5) into (1) and solving for distance yields the following CCIR maximum distance equation:

(6) dccir = antiLog10{[Pt + Gtot - R - 69.55 - 26.16Log10(fMHz) + 13.82Log10(hb) + a(hm) + B] / [44.9 –

6.55Log10(hb)]}

Example: for Pt = 39 dBm, Gtot = 7.5 dB, R = -95 dBm, fMHz = 2350, hb = 8 meters, hm = 1 meter and B = 25% area covered by
buildings; yields a maximum CCIR distance of:

(7) dccir (meters) ≈ 550

HATA PATH LOSS MODELS (Lhata) – based on the CCIR model and following extensive measurements of urban and
suburban radio propagation losses, Okumura published many empirical curves useful for radio system planning. These
empirical curves were subsequently reduced to a convenient set of formulas known as the Hata models that are widely used
in the industry. The CCIR and Hata models differ only in the effects of the mobile antenna and area coverage. There are
four Hata models: Open, Suburban, Small City, and Large City. The basic formula for Hata path loss is:

(8) Lhata = 69.55 + 26.16Log10(fMHz) -13.82Log10(hb) – a(hm) + [44.9-6.55Log10(hb)]Log10(dkm) – K

Where:

Type of Area a(hm) K

Open 4.78[Log10(fMHz)]2 – 18.33Log10(fMHz) + 40.94
[1.1Log10(fMHz)-0.7]hm –
Suburban 2[Log10(fMHz/28)]2 + 5.4
[1.56Log10(fMhz)-0.8]
Small City 0
Large City 3.2[Log10(11.75hm)]2 – 4.97 0

Substituting (8) into (1) and solving for distance yields the following Hata maximum distance equation:

(9) dhata = antiLog10{[Pt + Gtot - R - 69.55 - 26.16Log10(fMHz) + 13.82Log10(hb) + a(hm) + K] / [44.9 –

6.55Log10(hb)]}

2
 DOC# 8545-0003-01
Example: for Pt = 39 dBm, Gtot = 7.5 dB, R = -95 dBm, fMHz = 2350, hb = 8 meters, hm = 1 meter; yields maximum Hata
distances of:

5300, Open
(10) dhata(meters) ≈ 1600, Suburban
740, Small City
740, Large City

WALFISCH-IKEGAMI PATH LOSS MODELS (Lwim) – the WIM has been shown to be a good fit to measured propagation
data for frequencies in the range of 800 to 2000 MHz and path distances in the range up to 5 km. The WIM distinguishes
between Line Of Sight (LOS) and NLOS propagation situations.

In a LOS situation where the base antenna height is greater the 30 meters (hb ≥ 30) and there is no obstruction in the direct
path between the transmitter and the receiver, the WIM path loss model for LOS is:

(11) Lwim-los = 42.64 + 26Log10(dkm) + 20Log10(fMHz)

Substituting (11) into (1) and solving for distance yields the following WIM LOS maximum distance equation:

(12) dwim-los = antiLog10{[Pt + Gtot - R - 42.64 - 20Log10(fMHz)] / 26}

Example: for Pt = 39 dBm, Gtot = 7.5 dB, R = -95 dBm, fMHz = 2350; yields maximum WIM LOS distance of:

(13) dwim-los (meters) ≈ 16200

For NLOS situations the WIM model uses all the parameters listed in association with Figure 2. The model is the most
complex but it has the ability to represent more environments. In the absence of data, building height in meters may be
estimated by three times the number of floors, plus 3m if the roof is pitched instead of flat. The model works best for base
antennas well above roof height. The NLOS path loss equation is best presented in sections due to its complexity. The high
level NLOS path loss equation is:

Lfs + Lrts + Lmsd, Lrts + Lmsd ≥ 0

(14) Lwin-nlos =
Lfs, Lrts + Lmsd < 0

Where:

Lfs = Free-Space loss = 32.45 + 20Log10(dkm) + 20Log10(fMHz)

Lrts = -16.9 -10Log10(w) + 10Log10(fMHz) + 20Log10(Δhm) + Lori

Where:
-10 + 0.354 Ø, 0 ≤ Ø ≤ 35º
Lori = 2.5 + 0.075(Ø-35°), 35° ≤ Ø ≤ 55º
4.0 – 0.114(Ø-55°), 55° ≤ Ø ≤ 90º

3
 DOC# 8545-0003-01

Lmsd = Lbsh + Ka + Kd*Log10(dkm) + Kf*Log10(fMHz) – 9Log10(b)

Where:
-18Log10(1 + Δhb), Δhb > 0
Lbsh = 0, Δhb ≤ 0

54, Δhb > 0

Ka = 54 + 0.8| Δhb|, Δhb ≤ 0 and dkm ≥ 0.5
54 + 0.8| Δhb|(dkm/0.5), Δhb ≤ 0 and dkm < 0.5

18, Δhb > 0

Kd = 18 + 15(| Δhb|/hB), Δhb ≤ 0

0.7(fMHz/925 – 1), Small City

Kf = 1.5(fMHz/925 – 1), Large City

Substituting (14) into (1) and solving for distance yields the following WIM NLOS maximum distance equation:

(15) dwim-nlos = antiLog10{[Pt + Gtot - R - 32.45 - (30 + K f)Log10(fMHz) + 16.9 + 10Log10(w)

- 20Log10(Δhm) - Lori - Lbsh - Ka + 9Log10(b)]/ (20 + Kd)}

Example: for Pt = 39 dBm, Gtot = 7.5 dB, R = -95 dBm, fMHz = 2350, Small City; yields maximum WIM NLOS distance of:

(16) dwim-nlos (meters) ≈ 820

USE OF PATH LOSS MODELS

A good question asked is, what is the best path loss model to use? For instance, from the common example used above in
each model the calculated distance values range widely. Table (A) shows these calculated example values. What is the
correct model?

Table A
Calculated Distance Values for Common Example

Path Loss Model Calculated Distance Value in Meters

Free-Space 121,000
WIM LOS 16,200
Hata Open 5,300
Hata Suburban 1,600
WIM NLOS 820
Hata Small/Large City 740
CCIR 550

The two extremes (Free-space and CCIR) in Table (A) are further clarified in Figure 3 which is a graph of the various model
path losses as a function of distance. At a distance of 1 km the difference in the two extremes is approximately 50 dB and at
10 km this difference grows to approximately 70 dB. Hence, it is extremely important to pick a model that is representative
of the environment the RF system is working into or gross errors in system performance will occur.

4
 DOC# 8545-0003-01
Measured data offers a means to better understand what path loss model to use in calculating transmission distance. Field
strength measurements were conducted on a COFDM1 system. The transmitter was installed on the roof of a single story
building and the receiver was mobile. The system configuration consisted of transmitter power of 39 dBm, antenna gain of 9
dB, connection losses of 1.5 dB, transmitter height of 8 meters, receiver height of 1 meter and transmission frequency of
2350 MHz. At various known GPS location points surrounding the building field strength measurements were made. Figure
4 shows the GPS map and the various signal strength measurements at various points. Also shown are 100 meter rings that
are used to average the measurements. Figure 5 is a graph of both the calculated and measured receiver signal strength for
the roof mounted system. Note in Figure 5 the good correlation between the Hata small/large city model and the measured
data. Also, the WIM-NLOS model closely correlates with the measured data. The CCIR model seems overly pessimistic and
the open LOS type models seem overly optimistic. Based on Figure 5, along with ease of use, the Hata small/large city
model is recommended for most urban environment path loss calculations.

RULE OF THUMB DOUBLE-THE-DISTANCE ESTIMATOR

A common rule of thumb that is used in RF engineering is: 6 dB increase in link budget results in doubling the transmission
distance. This rule is correct for the Free-space path loss model but is overly optimistic and does not hold true for more
realistic models. In some cases it may take in excess of 15 dB increase in link budget to double the transmission distance.
The increase value is a function of the variables shown in Figure 2 with the transmitter height being the most sensitive. Table
(B) lists the dB increase value needed to double the distance for the various path loss models and for the system variables
used in the above distance calculation examples. Values are shown for two different transmitter antenna heights. Hence,
based on Table (B), a good rule of thumb for urban environments is: 12 dB increase in link budget results in doubling the
transmission distance.

Table B
Link Budget Increase Values Needed to Double Transmission Distance

Path Loss Model dB Increase Value Needed To Double Distance

Tx Height = 1m Tx Height = 15m
Free-Space 6.0 6.0
WIM-LOS 7.8 7.8
Hata Models 13.5 11.2
CCIR 13.5 11.2
WIM-NLOS 15.3 11.4

SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS OF DISTANCE CALCULATIONS

Equations 4, 6, 9, 12 and 15 calculate the maximum transmission distance for the various path loss models. Given these
equations exist allows for a maximum distance sensitivity analysis to be performed. The method of analysis is to change a
single variable in an equation by a fixed percentage and then calculate the resultant percentage change in maximum distance.
Repeating this process for each variable provides the knowledge as to what variable is the most sensitive to change. With
this knowledge, focus can be placed on the system elements that will afford the biggest payback in effort expended to
increase transmission distance. The Hata model will be used for illustrative purposes. Referring back to (9), the variables
that can be changed in the Hata distance equation are: transmit power, total gain, receiver sensitivity, frequency, transmitter
height and receiver height. Each of these variables was changed one-at-a-time by ± 2% increments up to ± 10%. The
percentage difference in distance was then calculated at each point. Figure 6 is a graph of the resultant Hata sensitivity
analysis. As seen, the receiver sensitivity is the most sensitive variable to change that effects transmission distance. A 10%
increase in receiver sensitivity results in a 75% increase in transmission distance.

A sensitivity analysis was performed on all path loss models with similar results as found with the Hata model. That is,
receiver sensitivity and transmit power are number one and two when it comes to distance sensitivity.

SUMMARY

1
COFDM - Coded Orthogonal Frequency Division Multiplex
5
 DOC# 8545-0003-01
Care must be taken when choosing the path loss model for predicting RF system performance. Serious errors can occur by
using the Free-space path loss model for all but the most restricted cases. A more realistic model to use for urban
environments is the Hata small/large city model. The Hata model is easy to use and has demonstrated its ability to predict
path loss with a good degree of accuracy.

For urban environments, the use of 12 dB is a good rule of thumb for predicting the needed increase in link budget in order to
double the transmission distance.

Receiver sensitivity is the first variable in a system that should be optimized in order to increase transmission distance. Other
variables in a system also effect distance but must be changed by a greater percentage to equal the effects offered by
changing the receiver sensitivity.

Walter Debus
Director of Engineering
Axonn, L.L.C.

6
 DOC# 8545-0003-01

Figure 1

Typical RF Transmission System

Ag/2 Ag/2

Path Loss (L)

Transmit Power @ Distance (d) Receiver Sensitivity
(Pt) (R)

Where:

Pt = Transmitter power in dBm

Ag = Total antenna gain in dB
Cl = Total connection loss in dB
Gtot = (Ag - Cl) Total gain in dB
L = Transmission path loss in dB
R = Receiver sensitivity in dBm
d = Distance between transmitter and receiver in meters

7
 DOC# 8545-0003-01
Figure 2

Physical Environment Path Loss Variables

base antenna
d

buildings

hb
hB
w
hm
b
street level mobile
antenna
!h b = h b " h B !h m = h B " h m

mobile station

# direction of travel
incident wave

Where:

d = Distance in meters
hb = Base antenna height over street level in meters
hm = Mobile station antenna height in meters
hB = Nominal height of building roofs in meters
Δhb = hb-hB = Height of base antenna above rooftops in meters
Δhm = hB-hm = Height of mobile antenna below rooftops in meters
b = Building separation in meters (20 to 50m if no data given)
w = Width of street (b/2 if no data given)
Ø = Angle of incident wave with respect to street (use 90º if no data)

8
 DOC# 8545-0003-01
Figure 3

Calculated Path Loss For Different Models

(fMHz = 2350, hb = 8m, hm = 1m, 25% Buildings)

200
190
180 CCIR
170 Hata Large City
Path Loss in dB

160 Hata Small City

150 WI NLOS
140 Hata Suburb
130 Hata Open
120 WI LOS
110 Free Space
100
90
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Distance in Km

9
 DOC# 8545-0003-01
Figure 4

10
 DOC# 8545-0003-01
Figure 5

Received Signal Level @ 2350 Mhz

(Pt = +39 dBm, Gaintotal = 7.5 dB, hb = 8m, hm = 1m)

110
105
100
95
90 CCIR
85
Receive Level in -dBm

Hata Large City

80
75 Hata Small City
70 WI NLOS
65 Measured
60 Hata Suburb
55
Hata Open
50
WI LOS
45
40 Free Space
35
30
25
20
0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0
Distance in Km

11
 DOC# 8545-0003-01
Figure 6

Hata Sensitivities
(F=2350Mhz, Pt=39dBm, R=-95dBm, G tot =7.5dB, TxH=8m, RxH=1m)

150%

100%
Percent Change in Distance

Rcvr Sen.
Tx Pwr
50%
Ant. Gain
Freq
0%
Tx Height
Rx Height
-50%

-100%
-10% -8% -6% -4% -2% 0% 2% 4% 6% 8% 10%
Percent Change in Variable

12