Professional Documents
Culture Documents
5A2 - Ramasubramanian 1570037269
5A2 - Ramasubramanian 1570037269
I.
INTRODUCTION
183
Proceedings of WInnComm 2015, Copyright 2015 Wireless Innovation Forum All Rights Reserved
a.
184
Proceedings of WInnComm 2015, Copyright 2015 Wireless Innovation Forum All Rights Reserved
and
are interchangeable provided they show
equal amplitudes. It applies for IMD products 2 F2 - F1 and
2 F1 - F2 frequencies as well.
The
point is simply given as:
(3.3)
Another important thing to note is that point of
convergence of fundamental and inter-modulation products
power level is purely theoretical, as the device is never
pushed to that point. It would get severely damaged if done
so, and moreover there would be internal system breaks
placed to avoid this i.e. the device would saturate [16].
One more important relation is that of
and
. It is as given below [17]:
(3.4)
where
is the Third Order Intercept Point. So generally
the 3rd order intercept point should be ~10 dB higher than the
1 dB compression point of the device. The basic block
diagram of the hardware setup is as shown below.
185
Proceedings of WInnComm 2015, Copyright 2015 Wireless Innovation Forum All Rights Reserved
c.
a.
Proceedings of WInnComm 2015, Copyright 2015 Wireless Innovation Forum All Rights Reserved
(4.1)
Floor1
7001
Floor1
7001
Floor1
7001
Floor1 Floor 2
7001 7013
7014
7024
Floor1 Floor 3
7001 7035
7036
-7.79
-35.16
-28.00
-37.72
-30.56
-45.51
15
15
15
15
15
15
-54.99
-82.36
-75.20
-84.92
-77.76
-92.71
70.49
97.86
90.70
100.42
93.26
108.21
53.06
53.26
53.26
53.26
53.26
53.26
45.25
72.06
65.02
75.02
67.58
82.78
-28.00
-28.00
-28.00
-28.00
-28.00
-28.00
70.31
97.31
90.27
100.28
92.83
108.03
15.5
15.5
15.5
Average n (1
floor above)
-18.74
-28.84
-65.59
15
15
15
-65.94
-76.04
-112.79
81.44
91.54
128.29
53.26
53.26
53.26
55.61
65.55
102.38
-28.00
-28.00
-28.00
80.87
90.80
127.64
15.5
15.5
Average n (2
floors above)
-73.05
-66.74
15
15
-120.25
-113.94
135.75
129.44
53.26
53.26
110.25
103.46
-28.00
-28.00
135.50
128.71
5.37
5.75
4.80
5.10
4.25
4.60
5.37
5.80
4.83
5.11
4.28
4.61
4.98
5.00
6.60
6.60
5.55
6.67
6.68
5.59
6.25
6.31
6.10
5.60
6.12
5.64
5.85
5.88
RX Gain (dB)
Calculated PL
(dB)
FAF Model
[PL(d0)+10*n(same
floor)*log(d)] (dB)
Floor Attenuation
Factor (dB)
15.5
15.5
15.5
15.5
15.5
15.5
-7.79
-35.16
-28.00
-37.72
-30.56
-45.51
15
15
15
15
15
15
-54.99
-82.36
-75.20
-84.92
-77.76
-92.71
70.49
97.86
90.70
100.42
93.26
108.21
n (same floor) = 5
67.33
87.86
92.92
98.75
104.70
115.18
3.16
10.00
-2.22
1.67
-11.45
-6.97
Floor 2
7013
7014
7024
Floor 3
7035
7036
-0.97
15.5
15.5
15.5
Average FAF (1 floor
above)
-18.74
-28.84
-65.59
15.5
15.5
Average FAF (2 floors
above)
-73.05
-66.74
15
15
15
-65.94
-76.04
-112.79
81.44
91.54
128.29
n (same floor) = 5
67.33
74.86
117.44
14.11
16.69
10.86
13.88
15
15
-120.25
-113.94
135.75
129.44
n (same floor) = 5
115.57
117.57
20.19
11.86
16.03
Power
Power
Power ReceivedPath Loss Path Loss exponent
Transmitted Received on RX Gain Correction Factor- Calculated
10nlog(d) K value for the Theoretical PL exponent using using log-Distance
Txd Node Rx node (dBm) UHD_FTT (dB) (dB)
Gain (dBm)
PL (dB) 20log10(f) (dB) (dB) ITU Model (dB)
(dB)
ITU Model
Model
15.5
15.5
15.5
15.5
15.5
15.5
Average n
(same floor)
Power Received
on UHD_FTT (dB)
Floor1 Floor 1
7001 7002
7004
7005
7006
7007
7011
Floor 1
7002
7004
7005
7006
7007
7011
Power Transmitted
(dBm)
187
Proceedings of WInnComm 2015, Copyright 2015 Wireless Innovation Forum All Rights Reserved
188
Proceedings of WInnComm 2015, Copyright 2015 Wireless Innovation Forum All Rights Reserved
and hence it can be seen that the second flow graph is better
for such power measurement dependent applications.
It was also seen that the between 3 and 5 nodes, the
CDRSS based algorithm lent better accuracy to the results
and closer x and y estimates than simple RSS based
algorithm for the same set of measurements. The error
seemed to drop by almost 45 %. This was not the case with
Simple RSS based algorithm for a set of 5 receiver nodes.
V. CONCLUSION
Characterization and Calibration is just one step closer to
making the SDR systems designed using laboratory friendly
devices like USRPs and GNU Radio utilities a wider
platform for real world applications. Extensive
documentation in terms of useful reference metrics is lacking
and experiments that explore the performance abilities would
help provide a good reference for researchers. Experiments
were conducted to derive calibration factors that would help
relate the test results to real world metrics and make the
result-set more easily and clearly understandable. These
experiments were conducted specific to some SDR software
interfaces and with some specific laboratory equipment like
spectrum analyzers and hence may not be applicable to all
the USRP devices uniformly. However, these experiments
have helped understand the basis of derivation of such
calibration metrics and provide a platform for future work to
obtain more uniformly and globally acceptable results.
REFERENCES
[1] G.Ramasubramanian,Performance
Characterization
of
USRPs, Bradley Dept of ECE, Virginia Tech, M.S Thesis
November 2014
[2] Jean-Philippe Lang. (2013) GNU Radio The Free and Open
Software
Ecosystem.
[Online].
http://www.gnu.org/software/gnuradio
[3] (2014) Ettus Research A national Instruments Company.
[Online]. https://www.ettus.com/product
[4] Terrence J. Brisebois, Wideband RF Front End
Daughterboard Based on the Motorola RFIC, Electrical
Engineering, Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, M.S Thesis 2009
[5] Michael Hills, Developing a Generic Software Defined
Radar Transmitter using GNU Radio, School of Electrical
and Electronics Engineering, The University of Adelaide,
Adelaide, M.S Thesis November 2012
[6] Jean-Philippe Lang. (2013) GNU Radio - The Free and Open
Software
Radio
Ecosystem.
[Online].
http://gnuradio.org/redmine/projects/gnuradio/wiki/FAQ#Ho
w-do-I-know-the-exact-voltagepower-of-my-received-inputsignal
[7] (2010) CORNET Cognitive Radio Network Testbed.
[Online]. http://cornet.wireless.vt.edu/
[8] (2014) Ettus Research A National Instruments Company.
[Online].https://www.ettus.com/content/files/07495_Ettus_N
200-210_DS_Flyer_HR_1.pdf
[9] (2014) Ettus Research A National Instruments Company.
[Online].http://www.ettus.com/content/files/kb/Selecting_an_
RF_Daughterboard.pdf
[10] (2014) Ettus Research A National Instruments Company.
[Online].http://www.ettusresearch.com/content/files/kb/applic
ation_note_uhd_examples.pdf
[11] Ayad M. H. Khalel, "Position Location Techniques in
Wireless Communication Systems,"Department of Electrical
It was seen that this flow graph was able to provide better
results than the UHD_FFT.grc both with and without the
respective calibration factors.
It was seen that Simple RSS based algorithm was able to
estimate the coordinates of the transmitter more accurately
and with less error than CDRSS based algorithm with n =
3.5 value, though this is not as per expectations.
With increasing exponent value it can be seen that error
decreases and the difference between the calibrated and uncalibrated RMSE also seems to decrease. This may be due to
fact that the circumcenter of the triangle created by the
receiver nodes around the transmitter node is shifted closer
to actual transmitter position when the exponent value is
closer to the actual value. When the path loss exponent is
near 3.5 to 4 (n tends to this range of values when
calculated using different reference nodes positions
assuming a log normal distribution for the path loss) the
Simple RSS method is seen to give less error and more
accurate localization.
With respect to calibration, the Simple RSS based
method showed considerable difference (RMSE was lesser
for calibrated power readings), while the calibration factor
had no impact on the CDRSS based method since they are
based on differential power measurements. This is also in a
way contradicting to the UHD_FFT.grc based measurements
189
Proceedings of WInnComm 2015, Copyright 2015 Wireless Innovation Forum All Rights Reserved
[12]
[13]
[14]
[15]
[16]
[17]
[18]
[19]
[20]
[21]
[22]
190