See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/304021960

On the validation of path loss models based on field measurements using 800
MHz LTE network

Conference Paper · April 2016

DOI: 10.1109/SYSCON.2016.7490590

CITATION READS

1 195

4 authors, including:

Yazan A Alqudah Belal Sababha

43 PUBLICATIONS   172 CITATIONS   
Princess Sumaya University for Technology
37 PUBLICATIONS   65 CITATIONS   
SEE PROFILE
SEE PROFILE

Ayman Elnashar
du
27 PUBLICATIONS   261 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Fault Tolerant Embedded Systems View project

UAV Imaging View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Yazan A Alqudah on 05 July 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 On the Validation of Path Loss Models Based on
Field Measurements Using 800 MHz LTE Network
Yazan A Alqudah, Belal Sababha Ayman Elnashar, Sohaib H. Sababha
King Abdallah II School of Engineering Emirates Integrated Telecommunications Company
Princess Sumaya University for Technology Dubai, UAE
Amman, Jordan

Abstract— Path loss models play an important role in cellular

network planning and deployment. This work reports on the path Irrespective of carrier frequency, network operators rely on RF
loss models accuracy for predicting received signal strength in an power analysis and measurements during network planning,
urban environment. The path loss is a key factor in coverage deployment and post deployment optimization. Propagation
analysis and hence model tuning is mandatory for accurate RF
planning. Using a large set of field measurements from a
and path loss models are used to predict the coverage and ensure
commercial LTE 800MHz network with 15MHz channel quality of service. Path loss models can be classified as
bandwidth, different propagation models are evaluated and empirical (stochastic) or deterministic. Empirical models rely
compared for their accuracy in predicting the path loss. The on measured data. Hata Okumura and COST 231 are examples
measurements are conducted in Dubai, UAE which offers a unique of empirical models for the macro cellular environment.
environment in its construction materials, architecture, topology Deterministic models predict path loss based on physical laws
and vegetation. The goal of sharing our findings is to help improve governing electromagnetic wave propagation. Whie
the accuracy of the models used to depict path loss. deterministic models are more accurate, they require involved
computations and an accurate description of the environment
Keywords— Mobile LTE, Path Loss, Propagation Models
and its objects
I. INTRODUCTION
A significant amount of research has focused on path loss using
L TE is the latest evolution in cellular data services. The
technology is based on a 3GPP Release 10 standard. LTE
offers high data rates, with downlink and uplink speeds up
different carrier frequencies and operating environments. In [3],
measurements were compared against empirical propagation
models. The results show closest agreement with ECC-33
150 Mbps, and 50 Mbps, respectively for category 4 (CAT4)
model for 3.5 GHz. The parameters of Okumura-Hata model
terminals with 20MHz channel bandwidth. LTE offers high
were tuned based on field measurement for urban and suburban
spectral efficiency and scalable bandwidths from 1 MHz to 20
environments operating at 140 and 440MHz [4]. Propagation
MHz. It supports both Frequency Division Duplexing (FDD)
models were studied utilizing WiMAX networks operating at
and Time Division Duplexing (TDD) [1].
3.5 GHz based on field measurement in [5]-[10]. In [11], path
loss was analyzed for GSM network operating at 900 MHz and
Network operators, vendors and smartphone manufacturers
experimental data was used to tune Hata model.
were quick to adopt the new technology. In 2015, it is estimated
that there are over 400 commercial LTE networks in more than
In this paper, we analyze the path loss of a commercial LTE
140 countries [2]. LTE standards support different carrier
network at 800 MHz based on field measurements. The existing
frequencies. The deployed carrier frequency varies by the
path loss models are evaluated for path loss prediction.
region. The main deployed frequencies deployment includes
Moreover, a new model is proposed for LTE at 800MHz and
800, 1800 and 2600 MHz. In this study, we conducted model
compared with the existing models.
tuning for LTE at 800MHz with a 15MHz bandwidth. The
commercial LTE network has another layer of LTE1800MHz
The paper is organized as follows: Section II reviews the
with 20MHz channel bandwidth for capacity boosting at
propagation models. Section III discusses the methodology
selected areas, while the 800MHz provide nationwide coverage.
The 800MHz carrier provided extended coverage and better used to take the measurements. Section IV provides the results
indoor penetration compared to 1800MHz which is used as a of the field measurements. Finally, Section V concludes the
capacity layer. 3GPP release 10 introduced CAT6 with paper.
LTE1800MHz (20MHz) + LTE800MHz (10MHz) aggregated
for peak TP of 225Mbps. Therefore, for this specific scenario,
if carrier aggregation is introduced by CAT6, then only 20MHz
+ 10MHz can be aggregated to engender 225MHz peak
throughput.
 II. PROPAGATION MODELS III. MEASUREMENTS PROCEDURE
Field measurements were conducted in the suburb of Dubai.
Path loss results from the environment interaction as a radio The area is covered by a base station that employs LTE. The
wave propagates between the transmitter and receiver. Path loss antenna is 25 meters high with three sectors. The topography
is defined as the difference between the transmitted and covered by the base station is flat and it is bordering to the sea.
received power. Path loss models are proposed to predict signal The area has urban clutter and is characterized by high humidity
power based on deployment. The models dependencies on i.e., 60%.
distance separation between transmitter and receiver, operating
frequency, transmitter and receiver antennas’ height and Table I: Summary of Propagation Models
environment specific dependency.
Model
Several models are available to predict path loss. These models Free Space = 32.45 + 20 ( ) + 20 ( )
have been traditionally applied to frequencies below 2 GHz [12- SUI = + 10 + + +
17]. The models are summarized in Table I. The free space (FS)
= 20 ( )
path loss is an analytical model that predicts the strength of the
= − ℎ +( )
signal received when a clear line of sight path exists between
the transmitter and the receiver. The FS model does not account = 6.0 10( )
for multipath propagation and cannot be used for point- =
multipoint radio link. However, it is included for reference. The −10.8 ,
Stanford University Interim (SUI) is an empirical model −20.0 ,
recommended by standardizing committee [13]. The constants d0=100m
and equations for the models are given in Table I. The model
contains frequency and height correction factors. The ECC-33
also known as Hata-Okumura extended model is based on Parame Terrain A Terrain B Terrain C
ter (hilly) (flat) (rare
Okumura model [16][17]. The COST-231 Hata model is an vegetatio
extension to the Hata-Okumura model that has a correction n)
factor for the environment. The Hata-Okumura model was A 4.6 4.0 3.6
developed for 500-1550 MHz. The Cost-231 model extends B 0.0075 0.0065 0.005
Okumura-Hata model to a frequency range up to 2 GHz [13]. C 12.6 17.1 20
The model calculates path loss for urban, suburban and rural
areas. The Ericsson model is based on a modified Okumura-
Hata model and allows changing parameters based on the ECC-33 = + − −
environment. Standard propagation model (SPM) is another = 92.4 + 20 ( ) + 20 ( )
form of Cost231-Hata model which has been adopted in several = 20.41 + 9.83 ( ) + 7.894 ( )+
9.56[ ( )]
RF planning tools.
= ( )(13.958 + 5.8( ( ) )
The standard propagation model (SPM) is based on empirical
= [42.57 + 13.7 ( )][ (ℎ ) − 0.585]
formulas and a set of parameters that are set to their default
values. SPM is a model (deduced from the Hata formula) = 0.759ℎ − 1.862
particularly suitable for predication in the 150MHz~3500MHz COST 231- = 46.3 + 33.9 ( ) − 13.82 (ℎ )
band over long distance (1Km<d<20Km) and can be used with Hata − ℎ
+ 44.9 − 6.55 (ℎ ) +
different technologies such as GSM900/1800, UMTS,
CDMA2000, WiMAX and LTE. This model uses the terrain For urban
profile, diffraction mechanisms (calculated in several ways) ℎ = 3.20( (11.75ℎ )) − 4.79
and accounts for clutter classes and effective antenna heights to For rural and suburban
calculate the path loss. This model offers several additional ℎ = (1.1 ( ) − 0.7ℎ − (1.5 − 0.8)
features to improve its flexibility and accuracy, such as the = + ( )+ (ℎ )
Ericsson
inclusion of clutter offset and diffraction. The model is suitable + (ℎ ) ( )
for macro-cell environments and can incorporate dual-slope −3.2( (11.75ℎ ) ) + ( )
with respect to the distance from eNB, if needed. ( ) = 44.49 ( ) − 4.78( ( ))
The K1 factor depends on the frequency band as shown in Table
Parameter a0 a1 a2 a3
II [19]. Typical parameters and the ranges for K2:K6 of this Urban 36.2 30.2 12.0 0.1
model are provided in Table III [19]. These parameters can be Suburban 43.20 68.93 12.0 0.1
adjusted to enhance the propagation model according to actual Rural 45.95 100.6 12.0 10.
propagation conditions. Standard L=K1 + K2log(d) + K3log(hb) + K4×Diffraction +
Propagation K5log(d)×log(hb) + K6(hr) + Kclutterf(clutter)
 Model in RMSE equal to 2.8. Shadowing can be modeled as zero mean
(SPM) Gaussian random variable N(0,σ2). Subtracting local average
d: separation, f frequency, Gb base station antenna gain, Gr from measurements, the values of s are shown in Fig. 2. The
receiver gain, hb base station antenna height, hr receiver height, histogram of the shadowing factor is shown in Fig. 3. The value
c speed of light, φ is the diffraction angle, Δhbase is the of the variance (σ2) is equal to 7.94.
transmitter antenna height above building height, B is the To validate the path loss models, the measured received power
distance between adjacent buildings, w is the building
is plotted against transmitter-receiver separation distance as
separation.
K1: constant (dB), K2: multiplier factor of log(d), K3: multiplier
illustrated in Fig 4. In addition to scattered measured data,
factor of log(HTxeff), K4: multiplier factor of diffraction loss, averaged data is also plotted to better visualize the data trend.
which must be a positive value, Diffraction loss: diffraction loss The predicted signal power is calculated using:
through the path with barriers (dB), K5: multiplier factor of
log(hb)log(d) = + + − − + . (1)
K6: multiplier factor of hr, Kclutter: multiplier factor of for
f(clutter), and f(clutter): average weighted loss caused by clutter Where GT is transmitter gain, GR is receiver gain, LT is
transmitter loss, LR is receiver feeder loss, and PL is the
Table II K1 Factor of the Standard Propagation Model
propagation model path loss. Figure 4 demonstrates the
Frequency 900 1800 1900 2100
(MHz) (GSM900) (GSM/LTE) (UMTS)
measured path loss. The predicted path losses are summarized
K1 12.5 22 23 23.8 in Table I, as well as the proposed model.

Table III Standard propagation model parameters range As indicated in Figure 4, the proposed model provides the best
Constant Minimum Typical Maximum estimate for the measured path loss. To validate this statement,
K2 20 44.9 70 the root mean square error (RMSE) and the standard deviation
K3 -20 5.83 20
K4 0 0.5 0.8 of the error between the measured and predicted values were
K5 -10 -6.55 0 calculated according to:
K6 -1 0 0
∑ ( , , )
= . (2)
th
Where xm,i , xpi is the i measured and predicted values,
User Equipment (UE) is connected to a PC with a modem respectively. These values are summarized in Table IV for all
logging tool to extract the field measurements. The page the models analyzed in the study.
provides measurements as well as link parameters. A total of
248 locations in the coverage area are considered as shown in Table IV: RMSE for different path loss models
Fig. 1. Global Positioning System (GPS) and Google Earth ®
are used to record and plot the locations and to calculate the Path Loss Model RMSE
distance between the base station and the UE. All SUI(A) 4.5756
measurements were performed at a height approximately equal SUI(B) 4.0940
to 1 m. SUI(C) 4.9516
COST231(urban) 3.4834
The modem logging tool provides the Radio Strength Signal COST231(rural) 4.7149
Indicator (RSSI) in dBm as well as other related parameters ECC Hata (medium) 18.0064
such as RSRP, SINR, and RSRQ. Measured RSSI, RSRP, ECC Hata (Large) 7.8363
SINR, and RSEQ are tabulated along with location coordinates. Ericsson (urban) 9.2194
Over a hundred measurements are averaged for each location. Ericsson (suburban) 20.9120
The selected site with 800MHz is isolated site and does not have Ericsson (rural) 31.6329
interference from other sites for accurate measurement. SPM 3.9806
IV. PROPOSED MODEL AND ANALYSIS Proposed 2.8159

As shown in Table IV, the proposed model yields the minimum

The path loss can be modeled as follows [18]
RMSE followed by the COST 231 (urban). Also, both SUI (B)
and SPM have low RMSE.
= + 10 log( / )+ , (1)

Where Lo is a constant, γ is a path loss exponent and s is a
random variable that represents the shadowing effect. The
constant Lo is the average path loss at d=do=100 m. Using local
average measurements and curve fitting, the parameter Lo and
γ are equal to 88.03 and 4.12, respectively. These values result
The measured data shows a minimum path loss of
approximately 95 dB when the receiver is in close proximity to
Base Station (BS). As the receiver moves away from BS, the
path loss increases to 140 dB at 2.5km.
 1000

900

800

700

Number of Measurments
600

500

400

300

200

100

0
-8 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 8
Deviation from Average

Fig. 3: Measured RSSI Variability

Fig. 1: A map Showing Locations of Field Measurements and BS

Shadowing Factor (s)

Fig. 4: Measured and Predicted Path Loss vs. Distance

V. CONCLUSION
This work presents a large set of field measurements of a
LTE network operating at 800MHz. The measurements are
used to study the accuracy of different propagation models.
Path Loss based on Cost 231 (urban) is found to have minimal
Fig. 2: Shadowing Factor vs. Distance
RMSE among existing path loss models.
We have proposed a new path loss model which yields the
lowest RMSE. The new model tries to predict the spatial local
average of the measurements. A shadowing factor is added to
the model to account for the variability of readings. This factor
is found to be random and is modeled as Gaussian random
variable. The variance of the shadowing is calculated from the
measurements.
 REFERENCES [13] Erceg, Vinko, K. V. S. Hari, M. S. Smith, Daniel S. Baum,
[1] LTE an Introduction, White paper, Ericsson AB, 2009. K. P. Sheikh, C. Tappenden, J. M. Costa et al. "Channel
[2] GSA. 2015. GSA - The Global mobile Suppliers models for fixed wireless applications." (2001).
Association. [ONLINE] Available at: [14] Okumura, Yoshihisa, Eiji Ohmori, Tomihiko Kawano, and
http://www.gsacom.com/. [Accessed 06 July 15]. Kaneharu Fukuda. "Field strength and its variability in
[3] Abhayawardhana, V. S., I. J. Wassell, D. Crosby, M. P. VHF and UHF land-mobile radio service."Rev. Elec.
Sellars, and M. G. Brown. "Comparison of empirical Commun. Lab 16, no. 9 (1968): 825-73.
propagation path loss models for fixed wireless access [15] Electronic Communication Committee (ECC) with the
systems." In Vehicular Technology Conference, 2005. VTC European Conference of Postal and Telecommunication
2005-Spring. 2005 IEEE 61st, vol. 1, pp. 73-77. IEEE, Administration (CEPT), “The analysis of the coexistence
2005. of FWA cell in the 3.3-3.8 GHz band,” tech. rep., ECC
[4] Prasad, M. V. S. N., K. Ratnamala, M. Chaitanya, and P. Report 33, May 2003.
K. Dalela. "Terrestrial communication experiments over [16] Hata, Masaharu. "Empirical formula for propagation loss
various regions of Indian subcontinent and tuning of Hata’s in land mobile radio services." Vehicular Technology,
model." annals of telecommunications-annales des IEEE Transactions on 29, no. 3 (1980): 317-325.
télécommunications 63, no. 3-4 (2008): 223-235. [17] Mogensen, Preben Elgaard, and J. Wigard. "COST Action
[5] Amarasinghe, K. C., K. G. A. B. Peiris, L. A. D. M. D. 231: Digital Mobile Radio Towards Future Generation
Thelisinghe, G. M. Warnakulasuriya, and A. T. L. K. System, Final Report." In Section 5.2: on Antenna and
Samarasinghe. "Comparison of propagation models for Frequency Diversity in Gsm. Section 5.3: Capacity Study
Fixed WiMAX system based on IEEE 802.16-2004." of Frequency Hopping Gsm Network. 1999.
In Industrial and Information Systems (ICIIS), 2009 [18] V. Erceg, L. Greenstein, S. Tjandra, S. Parkoff, A. Gupta,
International Conference on, pp. 123-129. IEEE, 2009. B. Kulic, A. Julius and R. Bianchi, "An empirically based
[6] Alqudah, Yazan A., and Ashraf Tahat. "Path loss and path loss model for wireless channels in suburban
propagation models at 3.5 GHz using deployed WiMAX environments", IEEE J. Select. Areas Commun., vol. 17,
network." In Information Networking (ICOIN), 2011 no. 7, pp. 1205-1211, 1999.
International Conference on, pp. 301-305. IEEE, 2011. [19] ElNashar, Ayman, Mohamed El-saidny, and Mahmoud
[7] Alqudah, Yazan A. "Path loss modeling based on field Sherif. “Design, Deployment and Performance of 4G-LTE
measurements using deployed 3.5 GHz WiMAX Networks: A Practical Approach”. John Wiley & Sons,
network." Wireless personal communications 69, no. 2 2014.
(2013): 793-803.
[8] Belloul, Bachir, Alejandro Aragón-Zavala, and Simon R.
Saunders. "Measurements and comparison of WiMAX
radio coverage at 2.5 GHz and 3.5 GHz." In Antennas and
Propagation, 2009. EuCAP 2009. 3rd European
Conference on, pp. 3287-3291. IEEE, 2009.
[9] Rimac-Drlje, Snježana, Josip Milanović, and Stanislav
Strešnjak. "Receiving power level prediction for WiMAX
systems on 3.5 GHz." In Wireless Communications and
Networking Conference, 2009. WCNC 2009. IEEE, pp. 1-
6. IEEE, 2009.
[10] Moraes, Edson P., Jefferson Covolan, Márcio Buffalo, and
Leandro R. Maciel. "〈 WiMAX Near LOS Measurements
and Comparison with Propagation Models〉." In Antennas
and Propagation, 2009. EuCAP 2009. 3rd European
Conference on, pp. 1-4. IEEE, 2009.
[11] Nadir, Zia, and M. Suwailam. "Pathloss Analysis at 900
MHz for Outdoor Environment." In Proceedings of the
2014 International Conference on Communications,
Signal Processing and Computers,(EUROPMENT 2014),
pp. 182-186.
[12] Sarkar, Tapan K., Zhong Ji, Kyungjung Kim, Abdellatif
Medouri, and Magdalena Salazar-Palma. "A survey of
various propagation models for mobile
communication." Antennas and Propagation Magazine,
IEEE 45, no. 3 (2003): 51-82.

View publication stats