Losses - 5G FULLTEXT01

UPTEC F 16034
Examensarbete 30 hp
Juni 2016
Outdoor to Indoor Coverage in

5G Networks
Vilhelm Rydén
Abstract
Outdoor to Indoor Coverage in 5G Networks
Vilhelm Rydén
Teknisk- naturvetenskaplig fakultet

UTH-enheten Outdoor to indoor mobile coverage is evaluated for different
frequencies in two scenarios, a single building scenario and a city
Besöksadress: environment. A new model for outdoor to indoor propagation is
Ångströmlaboratoriet
Lägerhyddsvägen 1 suggested, connecting existing, highly detailed indoor and outdoor
Hus 4, Plan 0 ray-tracing propagation models. The model is compared to previous,
site specific as well as statistical, propagation models. Results
Postadress: conclude that the new model gives higher path gain for edge users in
Box 536
751 21 Uppsala the single building scenario, whereas results from the city scenario
are inconclusive. Furthermore, results from the single building
Telefon: scenario suggest that indoor coverage is possible at 5 GHz and below
018 – 471 30 03 for most buildings, whereas for the city scenario indoor coverage at
Telefax: 5 GHz will be possible only for buildings without metally coated
018 – 471 30 00 windows. Achieving indoor coverage at 30 GHz is highly problematic
for all cases, and it is concluded that indoor base stations are
Hemsida: necessary if frequencies of 10 GHz and above are to be used in
http://www.teknat.uu.se/student
future mobile networks.
In addition, an indoor analysis is made to verify existing loss
per meter indoor models. It is concluded that such models are often
optimistic, although their assumption of log-normal shadowing remain
valid, at least for closed offices. Furthermore, the assumption of
loss as a linear function of distance might be unfeasible for higher
frequencies, where a breakpoint in the linear model was observed at
a distance of roughly 10 meters.
Handledare: Gunther Auer

Ämnesgranskare: Mikael Sternad
Examinator: Tomas Nyberg
ISSN: 1401-5757, UPTEC F 16034
Sammanfattning
Det här arbetet undersöker hur inomhustäcknining kan uppnås i framtida generationens
mobilnät. I synnerhet undersöks utbredningen från basstationer placerade utomhus till
användare som befinner sig i en byggnad. Detta görs för två fall: en ensam byggnad med
en basstation pekad mot sig och ett stadscenario med flera basstationer och intilligande
byggnader.
För att uppnå högre överföringhastigheter finns en stor enighet om att nya frekvensband
kommer att behöva användas, eftersom det är ont om bandbredd på nuvarande band. De
nya band man tittar på ligger på högre frekvenser, från ungefär 5 Ghz upp till kanske
30 GHz. Radiovågor på högre frekvenser dämpas till större del av hinder så som väggar
och träd, varpå det kan bli svårare att nå mobiltäckning på många platser. Därför krävs
det också nya utbredningsmodeller och simuleringar för att förstå hur vågutbredningen
fungerar på dessa frekvenser.
I detta arbete används Ericssons befintliga inom- och utomhusmodeller, som båda
baseras på strålföljning. De använder modeller av städer för utomhussimuleringar, och
modellen tar hänsyn till reflexioner och diffraktion runt byggnader. Inomhusmodellen
fungerar på ett liknande sätt, och använder planritningar från riktiga byggnader i sina
beräkningar. I detta arbete har dessa två modeller kopplats samman, för att ge en utbred-
ningsmodell som fungerar hela vägen från en utomhusbasstation till en inomhusanvändare
i en byggnad.
Arbetet visar att när en ensam byggnad simuleras, går det i de flesta fall att nå in-
omhustäckning inomhus från en utomhusstation för frekvenser upp till 5 GHz. Undantaget
är byggnader med moderna fönster med ett metalliskt skikt på och en planritning med
många väggar inomhus. I vissa falla är det även möjligt att uppnå inomhustäckning vid
10 GHz. När en byggnad placerad i en stad simuleras, kan inomhustäckning för 5 GHz
uppnås i hälften av fallen, men aldrig för 10 GHz. Detta tyder på att placering av separata
inomhusbasstationer kan bli en viktig del i att skapa inomhustäckning för höga frekvenser
i framtida mobilnätverk.
Contents
Glossary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
1 Introduction 2
1.1 Goals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
1.2 Thesis Outline . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2 Technical Background 4
2.1 Signal-to-noise Ratio . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.2 Channel Capacity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.3 Path Loss and Path Gain . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.3.1 Free Space Path Loss . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.3.2 Antenna Gain and EIRP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.3.3 Friis Transmission Equation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
2.4 Propagation Models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
2.5 Reflection, Diffraction and Scattering . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
2.6 Required Path Gain . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
2.6.1 Cell Edge Path Gain . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
3 Methodology 8
3.1 The Simulator . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
3.1.1 Ray Tracing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
3.1.2 Simulation Parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
3.2 Propagation Models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
3.2.1 Outdoor Propagation Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
3.2.2 Wall Penetration Losses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
3.2.3 Statistical Indoor Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
3.2.4 Partitioned Indoor Loss Model (Keenan-Motley) . . . . . . . . . . . 11
3.2.5 Detailed Indoor Model (Spoke) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
3.2.6 Outdoor to Indoor Propagation Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
3.3 New Outdoor to Indoor Propagation Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
3.3.1 Description of the New Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
4 Single Floor Analysis 14
4.1 Setup . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
4.2 Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
4.3 Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
5 Single Building Scenario 20

5.1 Setup . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
5.2 Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
5.3 Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
6 City Scenario 28
6.1 Setup . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
6.2 Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
6.3 Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
7 Conclusions 32
Glossary
BS base station.
cdf cumulative distribution function.
EIRP equivalent isotropically radiated power.
FSPL free space path loss.
KM the Keenan-Motley model.
LOS line-of-sight.
PG path gain.
PL path loss.
SNR signal-to-noise ratio.
1
Chapter 1
Introduction
There is a general consensus that there will be an enormous growth in the amount of
data generated in mobile networks in the near future. New requirements for 5G networks
include 1000 times higher data volumes, an order of magnitude lower latencies and a large
number of connected devices [1–6].
In order to realize higher data rates, the amount of available bandwidth for each user
must increase. As available spectrum in the current license bands are becoming scarce,
moving to higher frequencies has gone from a challenging opportunity to being an absolute
necessity [7]. The higher attenuation at these bands can possibly be compensated by the
use of large antenna arrays [8], a solution which becomes more feasible as each antenna is
growing smaller when wavelengths are in the mm range.
Another solution is to use indoor base station to offload outdoor cells and to give
coverage to users not reachable from outside base stations. In order to understand how
and where to place such indoor cells, good knowledge of the influence of outdoor macro cells
is required. Thus, the need to properly modeling outdoor to indoor propagation remains
an important challenge when it comes to achieving indoor coverage.
In general, mobile networks are assumed to be interference limited rather than noise
limited, meaning that interference from other users rather than propagation characteristics
limits the network performance. However, due to the higher attenuation of high frequency
signals combined with smaller cells, this is likely to change in future generations [2]. As a
consequence, having detailed propagation models becomes increasingly important to accu-
rately simulate and evaluate future mobile communication networks at higher frequencies.
1.1 Goals
This thesis aims to investigate how indoor coverage can be achieved in high frequency
ranges. In particular, outdoor to indoor coverage from outdoor base stations will be evalu-
ated using a new propagation model, which connects existing, highly detailed outdoor and
indoor models. In addition, existing indoor models are compared to each other, using real
building floor plans for different office types.
2
1.2 Thesis Outline
Chapter 2 begins by introducing some basic terminology followed by a brief introduction
to wireless propagation. In chapter 3, the simulator is briefly described, follow by an
overview of the parameters used in the simulations. Then, different propagation models
are introduced, including the new outdoor to indoor model developed in this thesis. In
order to fully understand the differences between these propagation models, chapter 4
contains a single floor analysis, analyzing the excess indoor loss obtained with the different
models. In chapter 5, outdoor to indoor propagation is simulated in a single building
scenario, where path gains are analyzed for different building types, propagation models
and frequencies. Finally, chapter 6 shows similar results in a more realistic city scenario,
before the work is concluded in chapter 7.
3
Chapter 2
Technical Background
This chapter intends to provide the reader with the basics of mobile communication and
wireless propagation models, including basic terminology and useful formulas.
2.1 Signal-to-noise Ratio

Noise exists in all communication systems, and can be a combination of thermal, cosmic or
man-made noise that cannot be controlled. The signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) is a measure
of how much stronger a desired signal is compared to the noise, such that
Pr
SNR = . (2.1)
PN
Here, Pr denotes the received signal power and PN the noise power at the receiver.
2.2 Channel Capacity

Channel capacity is an upper bound of the rate in bits per seconds at which information
can be reliably communicated over a wireless channel, closely related to the SNR described
in the section above. A theoretical upper bound is given by the Shannon-Hartley theorem,
stating that
C = B log2 (1 + SNR), (2.2)
where B is the available bandwidth in Hz. Note the close relationship between channel
capacity and bandwidth; for example, inserting an SNR of 1 gives an upper bound for
channel capacity of 1 bit/Hz.
Furthermore, note that the capacity increases linearly with available bandwidth, but
logarithmically with the SNR. Thus, in the high SNR regime, increasing bandwidth rather
than transmit power would give the largest increase in capacity. In the low SNR regime,
however, equation 2.2 can be approximated by
Pr Pr
C ≈ kB =k , (2.3)
PN N0
4
where k is a constant and N0 represents the spectral density of the noise, such that PN =
BN0 . Since the total noise level PN is proportional to the bandwidth B, the channel
capacity is independent of B in this regime.
2.3 Path Loss and Path Gain

The attenuation of a wireless signal propagating from sender to receiver is known as path
loss (PL) and defined as the power received divided by power transmitted. That is,
Pr
PL = . (2.4)
Pt
Its reciprocal is known as path gain (PG), which gives the simple relationship
PLdB = −PGdB (2.5)
in logarithmic scale.
2.3.1 Free Space Path Loss

If there are no obstacles between sender and receiver, a wireless wave propagates according
to the free space path loss (FSPL), given by
2
4πf d
FSPL = , (2.6)
c
where f is the carrier wavelength in Hz, d is the distance in m and c is the speed of light.
In most situations, the FSPL provides a poor estimate of the actual PL. For instance,
the line-of-sight (LOS) path might be blocked by obstacles such as buildings and trees such
that a reflected or diffracted path provides a better path. The additional loss apart from
the FSPL is called excess loss (X), such that
P Ltotal,dB = FSPL + XdB . (2.7)
2.3.2 Antenna Gain and EIRP

Antenna gain is a measure of how much the characteristic of an antenna may increase the
power transmitted in a certain direction, for instance by having the shape of a horn or by
using a parabola. The sum of Pt,dBm and Gt,dB is known as equivalent isotropically radiated
power (EIRP), measured in dBi, and can be understood as the transmit power that would
have to be used for an antenna with unit antenna gain to match that of a directed antenna
in a certain direction. Regulations for EIRP exist, and need to be taken into account when
planning cell sites or simulating cellular systems.
5
Beamforming Gain
By using an array of antennas, it is possible to steer the beam by adjusting the phases of
individual antenna elements. By combining several antennas, a beam forming gain can be
achieved, similar to the antenna gain described above. The use of large antenna arrays to
achieve a high beam forming gain is considered to be central in future 5G networks [2].
2.3.3 Friis Transmission Equation

Using the definitions above, Friis transmission equation gives an expression for the PG as
PGdB = Gt,dB + Gr,dB − FSPLdB . (2.8)
When results are presented, both the terms gain and PG in this thesis will refer to the
equation above, but with FSPL replaced with the path loss obtained from the propagation
model that was used.
2.4 Propagation Models

In most situations, the FSPL provides a poor estimate of the actual PL. For instance, the
LOS path might well be blocked by obstacles such as buildings and trees, so that a reflected
or diffracted path may provide a better path. For this reason, several statistical as well
as site specific models exist which replace the FSPL of (2.8) with a better estimate of the
propagation path loss.
A site specif ic model uses a 3D environment with outdoor buildings (or indoor walls)
plans along with some ray-tracing based propagation model, and is accurate for the modeled
situation. Such models will be described further in chapter 3.
A statistical model relies on measurements from similar environments, and is usually
based on the distance between sender and receiver. In contrary to site specific models, it
fails to take the actual environment into account.
In addition to the PL obtained from the propagation model used, shadow f ading may
be added to the calculated PL. It accounts for random losses by obstacles in the propagation
path, and is usually modeled as a log-normally distributed random variable.
2.5 Reflection, Diffraction and Scattering

The main propagation mechanisms for large-scale characteristics are reflection, diffraction
and scattering. Together they the determine the received power and thus the PG from one
node to another. A brief introduction is given in this section, a more detailed description
can be found in textbooks such as [9].
Ref lection occurs when an electromagnetic wave hits a surface which is large in relation
to its wavelength. The dielectric properties of the surface along with the frequency of the
6
wave determine the amount that is reflected. Reflections may occur from the ground or
buildings in a city environment, or from a wall, floor or ceiling inside a building.
Dif f raction occurs when a wave hits a sharp surface, such as a building corner or roof
edge. It allows the wave to propagate around corners, and reach a receiver that is not in
LOS with the sender. Diffraction is based on Huygen’s principle, which states that every
point of a wave front acts as a source for secondary waves. The diffracted wave is then the
integral of all secondary waves adding up to the received signal in a shadowed location.
Similarly to reflection, the amount of diffraction depends on the exact geometry of the
edge as well as the frequency of the wave.
Finally, scattering occurs when a surface is hit which is small compared to the wave-
length of the electromagnetic wave. This could be a lamp post, a tree or a rough surface,
causing a diffuse reflection from the surface of the object.
2.6 Required Path Gain

By solving equation 2.2 for SNR and given a certain bandwidth, the minimum required PG
for a communication link may be calculated. First, let the noise figure NF be a measure
of how much noise is added in the receiver circuits. Then, the minimum PG is given by
PGmin,dB = SNRdB − Pt,dBm + kTBdBm + NFdB , (2.9)
where Pt is the transmit power and kTB the thermal noise, a product of the Boltzmann
constant k, temperature T and bandwidth B. Thus, (2.9) together with (2.2) give a relation
between PG and achievable data rate for a user in a noise limited mobile network.
2.6.1 Cell Edge Path Gain

Cell edge PG is defined as the PG achieved by 95 percent of the users, and will be used as
the measure of coverage in this work.
7
Chapter 3
Methodology
This chapter is organized as follows: section 3.1 briefly describes the Ericsson simulator
and the simulation parameters used. Section 3.2 further describes the propagation models
used by the simulator, before the new outdoor to indoor model is presented in section 3.3.
3.1 The Simulator

The simulator used in this thesis is an Ericsson internal, time static LTE system level
network simulator written in Matlab. It offers support for various propagation models,
ranging from fast, statistical models to more computationally demanding, ray-tracing based
models, as will be further described in the following sections. The fact that it is time static
is not a limiting factor, as the goal of this thesis is to determine indoor coverage for
throughout a building floor plan, where users can assumed to be stationary.
3.1.1 Ray Tracing

Ray tracing is a technique to accurately model propagation of high frequency electromag-
netic waves, by tracing the wave propagation path from a base station (BS) to a user. In
particular, ray tracing may be used to model the reflections with building walls in a city,
or indoor walls in an indoor environment [10]. Since this technique approximates the wave
front with particle-like ray, wave-like phenomena such as diffraction needs to be modeled
separately. This can for instance be done by replacing the terrain profile with absorbing
half-screens [11], and using a recursive model [12].
3.1.2 Simulation Parameters

Since the parameters used in future 5G networks are yet to be determined, parameter
assumptions have to be made. The most significant parameters when studying proagation
is the carrier frequency, for which a few candidates exist. For instance, 28 GHz is used
in [13]. In this work, a range of frequencies was selected in order to give an idea of how
8
propagation characteristics change for various frequencies. The frequencies chosen in this
work are 2, 5, 10 and 30 GHz.
The EIRP for a 5G system is assumed to be 65 dBi, mostly by the use of large antenna
arrays to achieve a high beam forming gain. In the simulations, an antenna with 65 degrees
horizontal and vertical half power beam width is used to simulate an antenna with many
beam forming elements. As only PG is studied, and not interference between users, this
corresponds to being able to steer the beam individually to each user with a high gain.
To reach the chosen EIRP, a transmit power of 40 W and antenna gain of 19 dBi was
assumed. The actual values for a 5G systems will most likely differ from these, and may
also be frequency dependent. However, the EIRP remains the most important measure,
and it is assumed to be around 65 dBi for 5G systems. To reach an SNR of 0 dB, (2.9)
gives a minimum PG of -131 dB, which will be defined as the threshold for whether a user
is in coverage or not. For this reason, PG will be the measure of performance in this work.
The simulation parameters are summarized in table 3.1.
Table 3.1: System parameters.
Frequency [GHz] 2, 5, 10 and 30

Transmit power, BS [dBm] 46
Antenna gain (BS) [dBi] 19
Noise figure, DL [dB] 9
EIRP (BS) [dBi] 65
Horizontal beam width, BS [deg] 65
Vertical beam width, BS [deg] 65
3.2 Propagation Models

This section presents available models for outdoor and indoor propagation losses, including
wall penetration losses for different kind of walls. This work is largely based on the values
used in [14], which in turn are based on measurements such as [15–17].
3.2.1 Outdoor Propagation Model

The Ericsson outdoor propagation model uses a ray tracing approach to follow the rays from
an outdoor BS to a user. During the calculation, beams may be diffracted by roof edges
as well as building corners, and reflected on other buildings. The model is site-specific,
meaning it uses the environment of a real or fictional city to calculate the propagation,
rather than relying on statistical models.
3.2.2 Wall Penetration Losses

When a wireless signal propagates through a wall, the signal will be attenuated by a certain
amount, depending on parameters such as wall material and carrier frequency. In [14], the
9
building propagation loss in dB scale for a single glass window can be modeled as
Lglass = 0.1fGHz + 1 (3.1)
where fGHz is the carrier wavelength in GHz. Similarly, an inner wall is modeled as
Linner = 0.2fGHz + 1.7 (3.2)
and a concrete wall as

Lconcrete = 4fGHz + 5. (3.3)
Furthermore, a distinction is made between two building types, ”old” and ”new”. The
building propagation loss for the old building type is modeled as
Louter,old = 2aold Lglass + (1 − aold )Lconcrete , (3.4)
where aold = 0.2 represents the fraction of the wall covered by two-layer windows. The
new building type is modeled as
Louter,new = 3anew Lglass + 20 + (1 − anew )Lconcrete , (3.5)
where anew = 0.9 represents the fraction covered by three layer windows, where an addi-
tional 20 dB loss has been introduced due to an infrared reflective metal coating commonly
used on modern building windows.
The wall penetration losses for a few frequencies are summarized in table 3.2.
Table 3.2: Building losses for various wall types.
Frequency [GHz] 2 5 10 30
Lglass [dB] 1.2 1.5 2 4
Lconcrete [dB] 13 25 45 145
Linner [dB] 2.1 2.7 3.7 7.7
Lold
outer [dB] 8.1 9.9 11 15
new
Louter [dB] 20.5 24.6 26.5 32.5
In addition to the losses mentioned above, an angular dependence is modeled as
Lang = 20(1 − cosθ)2 , (3.6)
motivated in [18]. Here, θ is the deviation of the incidence angle from the normal vector
of the wall. For non-LOS paths, an angle of π/3 is used.
10
3.2.3 Statistical Indoor Model
When signals propagates through an indoor environment, the excess loss i heavily depen-
dent on floor plan properties such as wall placement and wall materials. If no explicit floor
plan is used, implicit models with a frequency dependent loss per meter can be used. They
are based on the assumption that walls are uniformly spread across a floor plan, with a
certain average wall distance between them.
In [seeman], two indoor models are proposed: one uses the single glass window of (3.1)
and the other the inner wall of (3.2). In this work an average of these two is used, such
that
Lglass + Linner
Lindoor,dB = , (3.7)
2d
where d = 4 is the average wall distance in meters. The losses are summarized for a few
frequencies in table 3.3.
Table 3.3: Excess indoor loss per meter.
Loss [dB/m] 0.415 0.525 0.713 1.463
3.2.4 Partitioned Indoor Loss Model (Keenan-Motley)

If floor plans are available, a site specific propagation loss may be obtained by the use of a
partitioned loss model. Whenever the signal propagates through a wall of a given material,
an additional loss is introduced as described in [19]. By summing up the losses of all walls,
the excess indoor loss can be obtained such that
n
X
Lindoor = Li , (3.8)
i=1
where Li denotes the loss from the i:th wall crossed when drawing a straight line from BS
to user. Thus, no angular dependence is used in the partitioned model, sometimes called
the Keenan-Motley model (KM).
3.2.5 Detailed Indoor Model (Spoke)

In addition to the indoor propagation models described in the previous sections, Ericsson
has develop a highly accurate, ray-tracing based indoor loss model called Spoke. Apart
from evaluating the loss from KM above, it also takes reflections on walls as well as diffrac-
tion around wall corners into account. Both specular and diffuse reflections are modeled.
In addition, Spoke adds an angular penalty when the incidence angle of a wall crossing is
not perpendicular. Finally, the model chooses the path that gives the lowest PL, which
could be a reflected or diffracted path as well as the direct path used in KM.
11
3.2.6 Outdoor to Indoor Propagation Model
One model for outdoor to indoor propagation was suggested in [14] and consists of evalua-
tion four candidate paths, as shown in figure 3.1. The outdoor part of the path is evaluated
using the outdoor model described in section 3.2.1, and the indoor paths may be calcu-
lated by either the statistical indoor model or by KM described in sections 3.2.3 and 3.2.4
respectively. Finally, the outer wall loss is calculated using (3.4) or (3.5) in combination
with (3.6). However, the Ericsson simulation lacks support for using the outdoor to indoor
model together with Spoke, desccribed in section 3.2.5. For this reason, a new outdoor to
indoor model was developed during this work, which will be described in the next section.
Figure 3.1: Propagation from an outdoor node to an indoor user [14]. The four paths are
chosen such that the indoor paths are always perpendicular to the outer walls.
3.3 New Outdoor to Indoor Propagation Model

The outdoor to indoor model described in the previous section is simple and works well for
low carrier frequencies, as the direct path is then the dominant propagation path. However,
for higher frequencies with an available floor plan, reflected and diffracted paths fails to
be taken into account. Furthermore, the four candidate paths evaluated might not give
enough richness in the amount of possible propagation paths, as will be shown in chapter 4.
In order to address these issues, a new outdoor to indoor propagation model was developed
in this work, and will be described shortly in this section. The new model should be seen as
a way of connecting the existing outdoor model described in section 3.2.1 with the detailed
indoor model Spoke, which was not previously possible in the Ericsson simulator.
12
3.3.1 Description of the New Model
The new model works by evaluating a number of entry points through the outer wall for
each indoor user. Rather than basing the entry points on the position of the indoor user,
it uses the same fixed set of entry points for all users inside the building. By doing so,
the indoor simulation becomes independent of the outdoor simulation, whereby these can
be run simultaneously in order to save computation time. The distance between the entry
points can be set independently of other parameters, and a value of 1.5 meters will be user
throughout this work. A lower value would likely give more accurate results, at the cost of
increased computational time.
Another difference concerns the wall loss which is added when penetrating the outer
wall. While the old model uses the angular wall loss dependence in (3.6), the new model
traces each ray through the wall, and any change of direction adds an additional loss
according to the recursive model in [12]. This is meant to give a more accurate modeling
of propagation through the outer walls, such as the ability to capture shadowing by concrete
pillar in the outer wall. But most notably, by combining the use of multiple entry points and
the detailed indoor model described in section 3.2.5, multiple reflected paths are evaluated
for each indoor user. This is assumed to be especially important at higher frequencies,
as reflections may play a larger role due to the higher attenuation of propagation through
walls.
In this report, the new outdoor to indoor model will be referred to as Spoke, as it allows
for the indoor model Spoke to be used together with the existing outdoor model.
13
Chapter 4
Single Floor Analysis
This chapter describes the simulations done on a single floor for different office types. The
goal is to analyze differences between the different indoor propagation models, as described
in sections 3.2.3 - 3.2.5.
4.1 Setup
In this section, floor plans for an open and closed office respectively will be used, shown in
figure 4.1. Both floor plans have a footprint of 50 × 40 meters. Here, a dry wall is modeled
with twice the loss of (3.2) and a concrete wall according to (3.3). An indoor BS is placed
in the upper right corner, and the excess PL is calculated to each user, placed in every
1.5m × 1.5m bin, resulting in a total of 832 users in each floor plan.
(a) (b)
Figure 4.1: (a) Closed and (b) open office floor plan where outer walls are red, inner dry
walls blue and concrete walls purple. The indoor BS is marked with a green circle.
14
4.2 Results
Figure 4.2 and 4.3 show excess loss per meter as a function of distance between BS and
user for the closed office and two different propagation models. The frequencies 2 and 30
GHz where chosen in order to clearly show any frequency dependent characteristics. Note
that the two models give similar results for the lower frequency, whereas for the higher
frequency Spoke suggests a significantly lower loss per meter. Furthermore, at the higher
frequency a breakpoint at a distance of roughly 10m can be seen, after which the inclination
of the data points seem to be lower.
120 120
Data Data
y = 1.64x y = 1.53x
100 100
Excess loss [dB]
Excess loss [dB]

80 80
60 60
40 40
20 20
0 0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Distance [m] Distance [m]
(a) (b)
Figure 4.2: Closed office: Excess indoor loss for (a) KM and (b) Spoke at 2 GHz, and
fitted curve (solid line) plus minus one standard deviation (dotted lines).
600 300
Data Data
y = 7.72x y = 4x
500 250
Excess loss [dB]
Excess loss [dB]
400 200
300 150
200 100
100 50
0 0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 0 10 20 30 40 50 60
(a) (b)
Figure 4.3: Closed office: Excess indoor loss for (a) KM and (b) Spoke at 30 GHz, and
fitted curve (solid line) plus minus one standard deviation (dotted lines). Note the different
scales of (a) and (b).
15
The cumulative distribution function (cdf) for the deviation between the data and the
fitted curve is shown in figure 4.4, where a normal distribution with the same mean and
variance as the deviation is shown as well. The data seem to match well, indicating a
log-normal shadowing in linear domain.
1 1
0.8 0.8
0.6 0.6
CDF
CDF
0.4 0.4
0.2 0.2
0 0
-30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 -150 -100 -50 0 50 100
Deviation [dB] Deviation [dB]
(a) (b)
Figure 4.4: Closed office: Histogram of excess loss distribution (boxes) and fitted normal
cdf (red) using Spoke, at (a) 2 GHz and (b) 30 GHz.
Results for the open office are presented in figure 4.5 and 4.6. Here, the difference
between the two propagation methods is even more pronounced. Compared to the closed
floor plan, the acquired loss per meter is generally lower for the open office floor plan. The
users with an excess loss of 0 dB are in LOS with the BS. While the standard deviation
shown in table 4.2 is similar for the open and closed floor plan, the log-normal shadowing
assumption seem less accurate for the open office case, as can be seen in figure 4.7.
100 60
Data Data
y = 1.08x y = 0.544x
50
80
Excess loss [dB]
Excess loss [dB]
40
60
30
40
20
20
10
0 0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 0 10 20 30 40 50 60
(a) (b)
Figure 4.5: Open office: Excess indoor loss for (a) KM and (b) Spoke at 2 GHz, and fitted
curve (solid line) plus minus one standard deviation (dotted lines).
16
600 200
Data Data
y = 6.22x y = 0.98x
500
150
Excess loss [dB]
Excess loss [dB]

400
300 100
200
50
100
0 0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 0 10 20 30 40 50 60
(a) (b)
Figure 4.6: Open office: Excess indoor loss for (a) KM and (b) Spoke at 30 GHz, and fitted
curve (solid line) plus minus one standard deviation (dotted lines).
1 1
0.8 0.8
0.6 0.6
CDF
CDF
0.4 0.4
0.2 0.2
0 0
-30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 -150 -100 -50 0 50 100 150
Deviation [dB] Deviation [dB]
(a) (b)
Figure 4.7: Open office: Histogram of excess loss distribution (boxes) and fitted normal
cdf (red) using Spoke, at (a) 2 GHz and (b) 30 GHz.
The loss per meter values and standard deviations are summarized for all frequencies
in tables 4.1 and 4.2, as well as in figure 4.8. The standard deviation for the fitted curves
in 4.8(a) were 0.027 dB and 0.059 dB for the open and closed offices respectively.
Table 4.1: Indoor excess loss [dB/m] using Spoke.
Open office 0.54 0.63 0.72 0.98
Closed office 1.53 1.88 2.36 4.00
17
Table 4.2: Standard deviation [dB] for fitted loss per meter using Spoke.
Open office 10.1 12.7 16.4 30.6
Closed office 9.53 12.8 16.8 29.7
As seen in figure 4.8, there is some resemblance between the open office Spoke simula-
tions and the statistical loss per meter values, even though the former suggests a weaker
frequency dependence. For 10 GHz, the same value is obtained for both methods. The
closed office values are seen to be significantly higher than those of the statistical model
for all frequencies.
4.5 35
Data, open office Data, open office
4 Data, closed office Data, closed office
30
Excess indoor loss [dB/m]
y = 0.015x + 0.54 y = 0,71x + 8.96

Standard deviation [dB]
3.5
y = 0.087x + 1.43
Statistical loss/m
3 25
2.5
20
2
1.5 15
1
10
0.5
0 5
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Frequency [GHz] Frequency [GHz]
(a) (b)
Figure 4.8: (a) Loss per meter and (b) standard deviation for all frequencies and both floor
plans using Spoke. Both (a) and (b) show data points as well as a linear fit.
4.3 Discussion
The fact that KM and Spoke give similar results for the low frequency, whereas a large
difference for the higher frequency, is most likely a consequence of the reflected paths of the
detailed indoor model, which seem to be increasingly important as the frequency increases.
The horizontal lines which can be seen in the KM plots correspond to the number of crossed
walls, which due to the lack of angular dependence give discrete loss levels. For Spoke, the
results are more smooth because of the angular dependence of wall penetration as well as
the reflected and diffracted paths.
Furthermore, a breakpoint can be noted at a distance of roughly 10 meters in figure
4.3(b). After this breakpoint, the excess loss increases more slowly as a function of distance.
This is likely because at longer distances, the signal tends to find alternate, reflected paths
rather than the direct path from sender to receiver.
18
For the open office, a comparison with table 3.3 shows that Spoke suggest a slightly
higher PL for lower frequencies, but a lower loss for higher frequencies. This can also be
seen from figure 4.8(a). However, for the closed office Spoke gives a significantly higher PL
for all frequencies. This might partly be explained by the higher loss for indoor walls used
by Spoke, but possibly also a shorter average wall distance than the 4 meters used in the
statistical model. Furthermore, the large difference between obtained loss per meter for
the open and closed offices further motivates the need for site-specific, detailed propagation
models.
The standard deviations listed in table 4.2 suggest little or no difference for the two
floor plans. This is somewhat surprising, as the cdf curves for the open office (figure 4.7)
seem to suggest a poorer match than those of the closed office in figure 4.4. This fact
suggests that the same log-normal shadowing could be applied to a loss per meter model,
even though the loss per meter itself should be varied to match that of different floor plans.
As shown in figure 4.8, assuming a linear relationship between loss per meter and
frequency seems reasonable, at least for this limited set of frequencies. Possibly, a non-
linear relationship could be obtained by running simulations on more frequencies.
19
Chapter 5
Single Building Scenario
In this chapter, the performance of users in a single building with a single outdoor BS will
be analyzed. Results are presented in the form of gain maps as well as gain cdfs.
5.1 Setup
For these simulations, a macro antenna is placed a 100 meters away from a 15 floor single
building, as shown in figure 5.1. On each floor, simulations are run with either a closed
floor plan, an open floor plan or no floor plan. When a floor plan is available, simulations
are run using both KM and Spoke. When no floor plan is available, the loss per meter
model from section 3.2.3 is used.
60
30
140
120
0 100
80
25 60
0 40
20
-25 0
Figure 5.1: Single building setup where the BS i marked with a green star and a user with
a blue dot.
For the gain maps shown in figure 5.2 - 5.6, a user was placed in every 1.5m × 1.5m
bin, resulting in 832 users per floor. For the other simulations, a 5m × 5m sampling was
20
used, resulting in 80 users per floor. The full set of building parameters are summarized
in table 5.1
Table 5.1: Building parameters.
Building footprint 40m × 50m

Building height 60m
Floor height 4m
Users per floor 832 (gain maps), 80 (cdf:s)
5.2 Results
The gain for users on the 8th floor are depicted in figure 5.2 to 5.6. The 8th floor was
chosen since its users are at a height of 30m, which is the same as the macro antenna.
The results for the open office floor plan at 5 GHz are shown in figure 5.2, and are similar
for both propagation models. However, Spoke suggests higher gain for the weaker users in
the center of the building, whereas a blue, horizontal stripe in figure 5.2(b) indicates that
users are shadowed by the concrete walls shown in purple in figure 4.1(b).
(a) (b)
Figure 5.2: Open office: Gain map of 8th floor for (a) Spoke and (b) the KM indoor model
with new building type and 5 GHz carrier frequency.
A similar gain map for 30 GHz can be seen in figure 5.3. Coverage is at -140 dB or
below for the whole center area of the office, including the shadowed region at the center
right. The two propagation methods suggest similar coverage, even though a fewer number
of users are shadowed by the small rooms in the upper and lower part of the office when
using Spoke.
21
(a) (b)
Figure 5.3: Open office: Gain map of 8th floor for (a) Spoke and (b) the KM indoor model
with new building type and 30 GHz carrier frequency.
Looking at the closed office in figure 5.4, Spoke once again gives a slightly higher gain
for the worst case users (dark blue) in the center right part of the office, while it gives
somewhat lower gain for the typical user. The detailed statistics will be shown more
clearly in the cdf plots in figure 5.7 to 5.10 below.
(a) (b)
Figure 5.4: Closed office: Gain map of 8th floor for (a) Spoke and (b) the KM indoor
model with new building type and 5 GHz carrier frequency.
22
For 30 GHz (figure 5.5), indoor coverage is extremely poor for both models. Here, some
users in the horizontal corridor above the center using the KM model have a slightly higher
PG than the surrounding users, something which cannot be seen for Spoke.
(a) (b)
Figure 5.5: Closed office: Gain map of 8th floor for (a) Spoke and (b) the KM indoor
model with new building type and 30 GHz carrier frequency.
Finally, figure 5.6 shows the results of the loss per meter model for reference. Since no
floor plan is used, the building specific propagation properties are completely lost. Also
for the loss per meter model, indoor coverage at 30 GHz is poor as seen in figure 5.6(b).
Results for other frequencies follow the same pattern, as can be seen from the cdfs described
in the next paragraph.
23
(a) (b)
Figure 5.6: Gain map of 8th floor using the loss per meter model, with new building type
and a carrier frequency of (a) 5 GHz and (b) 30 GHz.
The cdfs from a simulation at 5 GHz are shown in figure 5.7. As expected, the closed
floor plan provides a lower gain in general. The curve for the statistical model somewhat
resembles that of an open floor plan, whereas it is highly optimistic compared to the closed
floor plan, especially when it comes to edge users. Spoke does in turn suggest a higher
gain for edge users than KM, even though gain in general is slightly lower, as previously
seen in the heat maps.
100 100
Closed office, Spoke Closed office, Spoke
Closed office, KM Closed office, KM
80 Open office, Spoke 80 Open office, Spoke
Open office, KM Open office, KM
Loss/meter Loss/meter
60 60
CDF [%]
CDF [%]
40 40
20 20
0 0
-180 -160 -140 -120 -100 -80 -180 -160 -140 -120 -100 -80
Path gain [dB] Path gain [dB]
(a) (b)
Figure 5.7: PG at 5 GHz for (a) old and (b) new building type for the different floor plans
and propagation models.
24
A similar curve is shown for 10 GHz in figure 5.8, with similar trends observable for
the different propagation methods.
100 100
60 60
CDF [%]
CDF [%]
40 40
20 20
0 0
-180 -160 -140 -120 -100 -80 -180 -160 -140 -120 -100 -80
(a) (b)
Results are summarized for all frequencies in figure 5.9, showing that an increase in
frequency mainly corresponds to a translation of the cdf curve to the left. Another obser-
vation is that for 30 GHz the gain for users below the median value suffer more from the
increase in frequency.
100 100
2 GHz 2 GHz
5 GHz 5 GHz
80 10 GHz 80 10 GHz
30 GHz 30 GHz
60 60
CDF [%]
CDF [%]
40 40
20 20
0 0
-180 -160 -140 -120 -100 -80 -180 -160 -140 -120 -100 -80
(a) (b)
Figure 5.9: PG for new building type, using Spoke for (a) closed and (b) open office.
25
Finally, cell edge rates are summarized in figure 5.10(a). For none of the cases, achieving
a 0 dB SNR is possible at 30 GHz, and it is only possible for the open office with old building
types at 10 GHz. For 5 GHz, however, all cases but the closed office with a new building
type achieves this target. As a comparison, figure 5.10(b) shows the results of an indoor
deployment with 5 indoor base stations per floor. With a transmit power of 33 dBm for
the indoor base stations, (2.9) gives a minimum PG of -118 dB in order to reach 0 dB
SNR. As seen in the figure, this target is reached for frequencies of 10 GHz and below for
the indoor deployment.
-80 -80
Open office, old BT Open office, indoor deployment
Closed office, old BT Closed office, indoor deployment
-100 -90 -118 dB
Open office, new BT
Closed office, new BT
5th percentile [dB]

5th percentile [dB]
-131 dB
-120 -100
-140 -110
-160 -120
-180 -130
-200 -140
2 5 10 30 2 5 10 15 20 25 30
(a) (b)
Figure 5.10: PG, 5th percentile, using Spoke. The green, horizontal line shown the min-
imum required PG in order to reach a SNR of 0 dB. (a) Outdoor base station and (b)
indoor deployment with 5 base stations per floor for comparison.
5.3 Discussion
As can be seen from figure 5.2, and to some extent 5.4, using Spoke clearly suggests a higher
PG for edge users. The square, rectangular ”boxes” of low gain users (dark blue) are less
pronounced, likely due to the additional reflected and diffracted paths. Furthermore, the
statistical model in figure 5.6 fails to capture anything but the general trend of users closer
to the macro have a stronger PG.
The bright stripes seen in the left part of figure 5.3(a) is likely an effect of the limited
number of entry points used by the new propagation model, and can likely be reduced by
using a larger number of entry points, though this would also increase computation times.
The difference between the two models in figure 5.5 is possibly due to the same reason, ie.
the limited number of entry points.
Looking at figures 5.7 and 5.8, the detailed model seem to suggest higher PG for cell
edge users than what KM suggests for both floor plans, which could also be seen in the
heat maps in figure 5.2 and 5.4. However, PG for users in general seem lower with Spoke
26
than KM, and the statistical model suggests higher rates for almost all users, except for
the best users with KM and the open floor plan.
Note that these results are valid in the case of a LOS macro BS, capable of beam
steering to provide a high antenna gain to each user, independent of height in the building.
A more realistic scenario, where several macros exist but none has LOS, is simulated in
the city scenario in the next chapter.
27
Chapter 6
City Scenario
In this scenario, a building with the same parameters as in chapter 5 is placed in a fictional
city environment with a large number of outdoor BSs. Results are presented in the form
of gain cdfs, as in the previous chapter.
6.1 Setup
The city center, where the building is placed, is shown in figure 6.1. Users are placed in
this building in the same manner as in the single building scenario. A number of macro
antennas are predefined in the city, and the PG presented in the cdfs will be to the strongest
BS for each user.
(a) (b)
Figure 6.1: (a) The city centre with (b) a zoomed in top view around the actual building
(shown in orange), including nearby macro antennas (green stars).
6.2 Results
The results from a simulation at 5 GHz are shown in figure 6.2, and a similar curve for 10
GHz in figure 6.3. Results are summarized for all frequencies in figure 6.4. Once again,
28
the closed floor plan provides a lower PG in general. The curve for the statistical model
somewhat resembles that of an open floor plan, whereas it is highly optimistic for the closed
floor plan, especially when it comes to edge users. In the city scenario, it is no longer clear
that Spoke gives a better PG for edge users. For the open office, Spoke and KM perform
similarly for edge users, whereas for the closed office, Spoke rather seems to suggest a lower
PG for almost all users, including edge users.
100 100
60 60
CDF [%]
CDF [%]
40 40
20 20
0 0
-180 -160 -140 -120 -100 -80 -180 -160 -140 -120 -100 -80
(a) (b)
100 100
60 60
CDF [%]
CDF [%]
40 40
20 20
0 0
-180 -160 -140 -120 -100 -80 -180 -160 -140 -120 -100 -80
(a) (b)
29
100 100
2 GHz 2 GHz
5 GHz 5 GHz
80 10 GHz 80 10 GHz
30 GHz 30 GHz
60 60
CDF [%]
CDF [%]
40 40
20 20
0 0
-180 -160 -140 -120 -100 -80 -180 -160 -140 -120 -100 -80
(a) (b)
Figure 6.4: PG for new building type, using Spoke for (a) closed and (b) open office.
Finally, cell edge rates are summarized in figure 6.5(a), which can be seen to be more
pessimistic than for the single building scenario. Here, only the old building types manage
to get a PG above -131 dB for its edge users, at a frequency of 5 GHz. For the higher
frequencies of 10 and 30 GHz, none of the parameter sets manage to achieve the mini-
mum PG. As in the single building scenario, figure 6.5(b) shows the results of an indoor
deployment for comparison.
-80 -80
Open office, old BT Open office, indoor deployment
Closed office, old BT Closed office, indoor deployment
-100 Open office, new BT
-90 -118 dB
Closed office, new BT
5th percentile [dB]
5th percentile [dB]
-131 dB
-120 -100
-140 -110
-160 -120
-180 -130
-200 -140
2 5 10 15 20 25 30 2 5 10 15 20 25 30
(a) (b)
Figure 6.5: PG, 5th percentile, using Spoke. The green, horizontal line shown the minimum
required PG in order to reach a SNR of 0 dB. (a) Outdoor base stations and (b) indoor
deployment with 5 base stations per floor for comparison.
30
6.3 Discussion
In general, the gain in the city scenario is lower for all propagation methods. This could be
due to the lack of LOS path, something which has previously been noted in measurements
[20]. Furthermore, the difference between propagation models seems smaller in the city
scenario, with the exception of the closed office simulations with Spoke for which gain
is considerably lower than for all other methods and parameter combinations. Possibly,
this suggests that the new model is pessimistic in non-LOS scenarios, even though further
verification and calibration is needed to evaluate the new propagation method.
31
Chapter 7
Conclusions
In this work, simulations were run in different scenarios for carrier frequencies of 2, 5, 10
and 30 GHz. The general conclusion is that outdoor to indoor coverage might be possible
for frequencies of 5, or possibly 10 GHz, whereas extremely challenging for 30 GHz, even
with high beam forming gain. For this reason, indoor base station are likely necessary if
frequencies of 10 GHz and above are used for indoor coverage in future networks.
The indoor analysis done in chapter 4 suggests that having a detailed indoor model be-
comes increasingly important for higher frequencies, likely because reflections and diffrac-
tions play a larger role as the wall propagation losses become larger. Furthermore, the
indoor analysis suggests that existing indoor loss per meter models might be too opti-
mistic, at least for anything but open office floor plans. Another observation is that, for
high frequencies, assuming a linear loss per meter relationship might not be correct. After
roughly 10 meters, a breakpoint can be noted after which the loss increases more slowly
as a function of distance. Once again, this is likely to due the role of the diffracted and
reflected paths at high frequencies. If case linear relationship between excess loss and dis-
tance is assumed, the loss as well as its standard deviation both seem to be linear functions
of carrier frequency.
For the single building scenario of chapter 5, there is a clear difference between the
different propagation models and floor plans. As a general trend, Spoke suggests higher
gain for edge users, but slightly lower gain in general. Achieving a SNR of 0 dB is possible
in general for frequencies of up to 5 GHz, even though new outer walls with infrared coating
as well as a closed office floor plan make coverage harder. Furthermore, the type of office
play a large role in achieved gain, and for this reason statistical models should adapt a loss
per meter model corresponding to the simulated floor plan.
The conclusions from the single building case do not directly translate to the city
scenario in chapter 6. Here, achieving a SNR of 0 dB is challenging also at 5 GHz. Fur-
thermore, Spoke does not anymore suggest higher gain for edge users, and does in general
give a lower gain. One possibility is that the lack of LOS paths account for these differ-
ences, although further verification and calibration of the new model is most likely needed.
Similar to the single building though, the floor plan and building type play an important
role in determining whether users are in coverage or not.
32
Bibliography
[1] A. Osseiran et al. “Scenarios for the 5G Mobile and Wireless Communications: The
Vision of the METIS Project”. In: IEEE Commun. Mag. (May 2014).
[2] J. G. Andrews et al. “What will 5G be?” In: IEEE J. Sel. Areas Commun. 32.6 (June
2014), pp. 1065–1082.
[3] 5g: What is it? Ericsson, Stockholm, Sweden, White paper, Oct. 2014. url: http:
//www.ericsson.com/res/docs/2014/5g-what-is-it.pdf.
[4] 5G Radio Access: Requirements, Concept and Technologies. NTT DOCOMO, Tokyo,
Japan, White paper, July 2014. url: https://www.nttdocomo.%20co.jp/english/
binary / pdf / corporate / technology / whitepaper _ 5g / DOCOMO _ %205G _ White _
Paper.pdf.
[5] 5g: A Technology Vision. Huawei Technologies, Shenzhen, China, 2013. url: http:
//www.huawei.com/5gwhitepaper/.
[6] Looking ahead to 5G: Building a virtual zero latency gigabit experience. Nokia Solu-
tions and Networks, Espoo, Finland, White paper, 2014. url: http://networks.
nokia.com/sites/default/files/document/5g_white_%20paper_0.pdf.
[7] Estimated spectrum bandwidth requirements for the future development of IMT-2000
and IMT-Advanced. Geneva, Switzerland, Rep. M.2078, 2006.
[8] Z. Pi and F. Khan. “An introduction to millimeter-wave mobile broadband systems”.
In: IEEE Commun. Mag. 49.6 (June 2011), pp. 101–107.
[9] T.S Rappaport. Wireless Communications: Principles and Practice. Prentice Hall,
2002.
[10] M.F Iskander and Zhengqing Yun. “Propagation prediction models for wireless com-
munication systems”. In: IEEE Transactions on Microwave Theory and Techniques
50.3 (2002), pp. 662–673. doi: 10.1109/22.989951.
[11] H. Holmquist J. -E. Berg. “An FFT multiple half-screen diffraction model”. In: Ve-
hicular Technology Conference, 1994 IEEE 44th 1 (June 1995), pp. 195–199. doi:
10.1109/VETEC.1994.345139.
33
[12] J. -E. Berg. “A recursive method for street microcell path loss calculations”. In:
PIMRC’95. Wireless: Merging onto the Information Superhighway., Sixth IEEE In-
ternational Symposium on 1 (Sept. 1995), pp. 140–143. doi: 10.1109/PIMRC.1995.
476420.
[13] C. Larsson et. al. “An Outdoor-to-Indoor Propagation Scenario at 28 GHz”. In:
Antennas and Propagation (EuCAP), Proc. of the 6th European Conference (Apr.
2014).
[14] E. Semaan et. al. “Outdoor-to-Indoor Coverage in High Frequency Bands”. In: Globe-
com Workshops (GC Wkshps) (Dec. 2014), pp. 393–398. doi: 10.1109/GLOCOMW.
2014.7063463.
[15] H. Zhao et. al. “28 GHz Millimeter Wave Cellular Communication Measurements
for Reflection and Penetration Loss in and around Buildings in New York City”. In:
IEEE International Conference on Communications (ICC) (2013), pp. 5163–5167.
issn: 1550-3607. doi: 10.1109/ICC.2013.6655403.
[16] H. Xu et. al. “Spatial and temporal characteristics of 60-GHz indoor channels”. In:
IEEE Journal on Selected Areas in Communications 20.3 (2002), pp. 620–630. doi:
10.1109/49.995521.
[17] J. Medbo et. al. “Multi-frequency path loss in an outdoor to indoor macrocellular sce-
nario”. In: 3rd European Conference on Antennas and Propagation (2009), pp. 3601–
3605.
[18] J-E. Berg. “Building Penetration Loss Along Urban Street Microcells”. In: Proc.
PIMRC’96 (1996), pp. 795–797.
[19] A.J. Motley J.M Keenan. “Radio coverage in buildings”. In: British Telecom Tech-
nology Journal 8.1 (Jan. 1990), pp. 19–24.
[20] T. S. Rappaport et. al. “Broadband Millimeter-Wave Propagation Measurements
and Models Using Adaptive-Beam Antennas for Outdoor Urban Cellular Communi-
cations”. In: IEEE Transactions on Antennas and Propagation 61.4 (2013), pp. 1850–
1859. doi: 10.1109/TAP.2012.2235056.
34

Losses - 5G FULLTEXT01

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Losses - 5G FULLTEXT01

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

UPTEC F 16034

Outdoor to Indoor Coverage in

Teknisk- naturvetenskaplig fakultet

Handledare: Gunther Auer

5 Single Building Scenario 20

cdf cumulative distribution function.

EIRP equivalent isotropically radiated power.

FSPL free space path loss.

KM the Keenan-Motley model.

SNR signal-to-noise ratio.

2.1 Signal-to-noise Ratio

2.2 Channel Capacity

2.3 Path Loss and Path Gain

PLdB = −PGdB (2.5)

2.3.1 Free Space Path Loss

P Ltotal,dB = FSPL + XdB . (2.7)

2.3.2 Antenna Gain and EIRP

2.3.3 Friis Transmission Equation

PGdB = Gt,dB + Gr,dB − FSPLdB . (2.8)

2.4 Propagation Models

2.5 Reflection, Diffraction and Scattering

2.6 Required Path Gain

PGmin,dB = SNRdB − Pt,dBm + kTBdBm + NFdB , (2.9)

2.6.1 Cell Edge Path Gain

3.1 The Simulator

3.1.1 Ray Tracing

3.1.2 Simulation Parameters

Table 3.1: System parameters.

Frequency [GHz] 2, 5, 10 and 30

3.2 Propagation Models

3.2.1 Outdoor Propagation Model

3.2.2 Wall Penetration Losses

Lglass = 0.1fGHz + 1 (3.1)

Linner = 0.2fGHz + 1.7 (3.2)

and a concrete wall as

Louter,old = 2aold Lglass + (1 − aold )Lconcrete , (3.4)

Louter,new = 3anew Lglass + 20 + (1 − anew )Lconcrete , (3.5)

Table 3.2: Building losses for various wall types.

In addition to the losses mentioned above, an angular dependence is modeled as

Lang = 20(1 − cosθ)2 , (3.6)

Table 3.3: Excess indoor loss per meter.

3.2.4 Partitioned Indoor Loss Model (Keenan-Motley)

3.2.5 Detailed Indoor Model (Spoke)

3.3 New Outdoor to Indoor Propagation Model

Single Floor Analysis

Excess loss [dB]

Excess loss [dB]

Excess loss [dB]

Excess loss [dB]

Table 4.1: Indoor excess loss [dB/m] using Spoke.

y = 0.015x + 0.54 y = 0,71x + 8.96

Single Building Scenario

Building footprint 40m × 50m

5th percentile [dB]

5th percentile [dB]

You might also like