Your SlideShare is downloading. ×
Comparison between-sui-and-hata-path-loss-models
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Thanks for flagging this SlideShare!

Oops! An error has occurred.

×

Introducing the official SlideShare app

Stunning, full-screen experience for iPhone and Android

Text the download link to your phone

Standard text messaging rates apply

Comparison between-sui-and-hata-path-loss-models

158
views

Published on

comparison between sui and hata path loss model

comparison between sui and hata path loss model

Published in: Engineering

0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
158
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
0
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

Report content
Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
No notes for slide

Transcript

  • 1. March 2008 IEEE P802 IEEE P802.19 Wireless Coexistence Comparison between SUI and HATA Path-Loss Models Date: 2008-03-16 Author(s): Shahar Hauzner Name Company Address Phone email Shahar Hauzner Alvarion 21A, Ha Barzel Street, Tel Aviv, Israel +972 3 7674150 Shahar.hauzner@alva rion.com Comparison between path loss models page 1 Shahar Hauzner Abstract This document compares between the SUI and HATA path-loss models, for the parameters used in the wireless coexistence simulation. Notice: This document has been prepared to assist IEEE 802.19. 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 grants a free, irrevocable license to the IEEE to incorporate material contained in this contribution, and any modifications thereof, in the creation of an IEEE Standards publication; to copyright in the IEEE’s name any IEEE Standards publication even though it may include portions of this contribution; and at the IEEE’s sole discretion to permit others to reproduce in whole or in part the resulting IEEE Standards publication. The contributor also acknowledges and accepts that this contribution may be made public by IEEE 802.19. Patent Policy and Procedures: The contributor is familiar with the IEEE 802 Patent Policy and Procedures <http:// ieee802.org/guides/bylaws/sb-bylaws.pdf>, including the statement "IEEE standards may include the known use of patent(s), including patent applications, provided the IEEE receives assurance from the patent holder or applicant with respect to patents essential for compliance with both mandatory and optional portions of the standard." Early disclosure to the TAG of patent information that might be relevant to the standard is essential to reduce the possibility for delays in the development process and increase the likelihood that the draft publication will be approved for publication. Please notify the Chair <Shellhammer@ieee.org> as early as possible, in written or electronic form, if patented technology (or technology under patent application) might be incorporated into a draft standard being developed within the IEEE 802.19 TAG. If you have questions, contact the IEEE Patent Committee Administrator at <patcom@ieee.org>.
  • 2. March 2008 IEEE P802 Comparison between path-loss models The following document presents the path loss for SUI (terrain type B), modified HATA (from Ahmed's contribution) and FSPL models, according to the following parameters: • BS height = 25 m • MS height = 10 m • f = 3650 MHz The SUI path loss was calculated according to:       −      ⋅ +            +−+      ⋅⋅ = 2 log8.10 102 log6 100 log 1.17 0065.0410 1004 log20 109101010 Rx Tx TxSUI hfd h h c f PL π Where f is the carrier frequency in Hz, c is the speed of light, Txh is the transmitter height, Rxh is the receiver height, and d is the distance between the transmitter and receiver. The modified HATA path loss was calculated according to: ( ) ( ) ( )( ) )()log(log6.55-44.9(97.475.11log3.2-13.82log-log26.1669.55 10 2 101010HATA dhhhfPL TxRxTx +++= Where f , c , Txh , Rxh , and d are the same as above. The free space path loss was calculated according to:       ⋅⋅ = c fd FSPL π4 log20 10 Where f , c , and d are the same as above. Figure 1 below shows the path loss for these models, per Tx-Rx type: Comparison between path loss models page 2 Shahar Hauzner
  • 3. March 2008 IEEE P802 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500 5000 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 SUI: BS-MS SUI: BS-BS SUI: MS-MS HATA: BS-MS HATA: BS-BS HATA: MS-MS FSPL Figure 1 Figure 2 below focus on distances of less than 500 m (for the same parameters as above): 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 70 75 80 85 90 95 100 105 110 115 120 distance (m) patloss(dB) Path loss SUI: BS-MS SUI: BS-BS SUI: MS-MS HATA: BS-MS HATA: BS-BS HATA: MS-MS FSPL Figure 2 Comparison between path loss models page 3 Shahar Hauzner
  • 4. March 2008 IEEE P802 From Figure 2, the following observations can be made: • SUI model: o BS-MS PL is better the FSPL for distance of less than 180 m (max difference = 5 dB) o BS-BS PL is better the FSPL for distance of less than 260 m (max difference = 10 dB) o MS-MS PL is better the FSPL for distance of less than 150 m (max difference = 5 dB) • Modified HATA model: o BS-MS PL is always worse than FSPL o BS-BS PL is better the FSPL for distance of less than 200 m (max difference = 4.5 dB) o MS-MS PL is always worse than FSPL Figure 3 shows the path loss for the SUI, HATA and FS models for the following parameters: • BS height = 25 m • MS height = 2 m • f = 3650 MHz 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500 5000 50 100 150 200 250 300 distance (m) pathloss(dB) SUI: BS-MS SUI: BS-BS SUI: MS-MS HATA: BS-MS HATA: BS-BS HATA: MS-MS FSPL Figure 3 Figure 4 below focus on distances of less than 500 m (for the same parameters as above): Comparison between path loss models page 4 Shahar Hauzner
  • 5. March 2008 IEEE P802 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 distance (m) pathloss(dB) SUI: BS-MS SUI: BS-BS SUI: MS-MS HATA: BS-MS HATA: BS-BS HATA: MS-MS FSPL Figure 4 From Figure 4, the following observations can be made: • SUI model: o BS-MS PL is better the FSPL for distance of less than 100 o BS-BS PL is better the FSPL for distance of less than 260 m (max difference = 10 dB) o MS-MS PL is better the FSPL for distance of less than 100 m • Modified HATA model: o BS-MS PL is always worse than FSPL o BS-BS PL is better the FSPL for distance of less than 200 m (max difference = 4.5 dB) o MS-MS PL is always worse than FSPL Comparison between path loss models page 5 Shahar Hauzner
  • 6. March 2008 IEEE P802 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 distance (m) pathloss(dB) SUI: BS-MS SUI: BS-BS SUI: MS-MS HATA: BS-MS HATA: BS-BS HATA: MS-MS FSPL Figure 4 From Figure 4, the following observations can be made: • SUI model: o BS-MS PL is better the FSPL for distance of less than 100 o BS-BS PL is better the FSPL for distance of less than 260 m (max difference = 10 dB) o MS-MS PL is better the FSPL for distance of less than 100 m • Modified HATA model: o BS-MS PL is always worse than FSPL o BS-BS PL is better the FSPL for distance of less than 200 m (max difference = 4.5 dB) o MS-MS PL is always worse than FSPL Comparison between path loss models page 5 Shahar Hauzner