The COST 273 MIMO Channel Model: Three Kinds of Clusters

Forschungszentrum Telekommunikation Wien (ftw.), Vienna, Austria Microwave Laboratory, Universit catholique de Louvain (UCL), Belgium e czink@ftw.at

Nicolai Czink1 , Claude Oestges2

Abstract The novel COST 273 MIMO channel model is a good candidate for link-level and system-level simulations of multi-antenna communication systems. This geometry-based stochastic channel model is based on the concepts of multipath clusters, allowing for an implementation with low computational effort. The model is suitable to accurately reect the frequencyselective, time-variant, fully-polarimetric nature of various propagation environments. Having only few external parameters, it is particularly interesting for signal processing engineers wanting to test their algorithms against realistic channels. A current shortcoming of the COST 273 MIMO channel model is its missing parametrisation for a number of scenarios. Particularly, the parametrisation of the cluster parameters is challenging, even more, since three different kinds of clusters are used to model the channel. This paper outlines an approach to consistently parametrise the clusters used in the COST 273 MIMO channel model from representative measurement data. KeywordsMIMO channel; geometry-based stochastic channel models; COST 273 MIMO channel model

model parameters from measurements, are required. To do so, multipath clusters need to be identied in measurement data. Identifying clusters from measurements was automated in the last years [3]. However, the main difculty in parametrising the COST 273 MIMO channel model is the fact that it uses three different kinds of clusters to accurately model the radio channel. In view of the above discussion, this paper provides an overview of the three different kinds of clusters in order to provide an impetus for future research on the automatic parametrisation of the COST 273 MIMO channel model. II. OVERVIEW OF THE COST 273 MIMO CHANNEL MODEL The COST 273 MIMO channel model is a geometrybased stochastic channel model, analogous the other recently developed models [4], [5], and aimed at link- and/or systemlevel simulations. A main difference with the above mentioned models lies however in the fact that the base station and mobile terminal(s) are specied by absolute positions in a twodimensional space, rather then just relatively with respect to one another. The model itself has a generic structure, i.e. the core of the model is the same for all kinds of environments. Hence, the distinction between the environments is solely done by the model parameters. The following Section will provide a brief overview of the different kinds of environments. Subsequently, we will describe the external model parameters which are to be set by the user of the model. Finally, we will describe the internals of the COST 273 MIMO channel model. A. Environments The COST 273 community envisioned 4 different groups of environments: macrocells, microcells, picocells, and adhoc networks. Each of these groups is further split up into signicantly different propagation scenarios, leading to a total number of 22 different environments. Seven of these scenarios are indicated as mandatory scenarios, which are foreseen to be used for system testing: (i) small macrocells in city centre, (ii) large urban macrocells, (iii) outdoor-to-indoor urban, (iv) city centre microcells, (v) picocell in a hall, (vi) ofce lineof-sight, (vii) ofce non-line-of-sight. Unfortunately, the internal model parameters for a number of these scenarios are yet to be identied.

I. I NTRODUCTION The new COST 273 MIMO channel model [1] aims to model a large number of different scenarios. Its generic structure uses clusters, i.e. groups of multipath components, to model the wideband, time-variant, double-directional, fullypolarimetric radio channel. Its ultimate goal is to provide time series of the multiple-input multiple-output (MIMO) channel for link- and system-level simulations, yielding values of essential characteristics of the MIMO channel (spacetime correlations, mutual information, etc.), as a function of environmental and antenna array parameters. In contrast to analytical models, such as the Kronecker or the eigenbeam (a.k.a. Weichselberger [2]) representations , it must be understood that the COST 273 MIMO channel model does not allow for the explicit design of space-time coding techniques. While analytical models provide a tractable mathematical framework for algorithm design, they neglect important properties of the radio channel. Thus it is necessary to test MIMO algorithms against a realistic channel model, such as the COST 273 MIMO channel model, to quantify its applicability in real-world environments. The COST 273 MIMO channel model is not yet completely parametrised for all of the envisioned scenarios. Particularly, the cluster parameters are still an open issue. To nd consistent model parameters, automatic methods identifying the

978-1-4244-2204-3/08/$25.00 2008 IEEE

B. User parameters Despite the large number of internal parameters and the plenitude of scenarios, the usage of the COST 273 MIMO channel model is quite simple. Only a few parameters need to be specied. These user parameters (external parameters) are the carrier frequency and bandwidth lter, base-station (BS) absolute position and mobile-station (MS) trajectory in a 2-D space, antenna array specications and the rotation of the array in the 2-D coordinate system, and, optionally, a particular pathloss model. For the straight-forward usage of the COST 273 MIMO channel model, it is even foreseen to provide exemplary user parameter sets. C. Generic model structure The internal structure of the COST 273 MIMO channel model is quite complex. This paper will not discuss the internals in detail, but rather provide a comprehensible overview. As already mentioned, the environments are modeled geometrically. Scattering obstacles are represented by clusters, each cluster consisting of a group of geometrically co-located scatterers, represented by paths from/to the BS and MS. In this way, specular reection, diffraction, and also scattering, can be modeled with low complexity. The generation of the radio environment is as follows: 1) Place a local cluster around the MS, and around the BS1 . 2) Place single-interaction clusters according to statistical distributions, given the MS trajectory. 3) Place multiple-interaction clusters according to statistical distributions, given the MS trajectory (applies only in selected environments). 4) Depending on the scenario, the line-of-sight component is considered. The three different kinds of clusters are described in more detail in Section III. After this step, the propagation environment is specied by a number of discrete propagation paths. By letting the MS move through the propagation environment along its trajectory, the parameters of the propagation paths, i.e. delay, direction of arrival, and direction of departure, change accordingly. Using a system model including the antenna patterns, the MIMO channel matrix is calculated [6, Sec. 6.7]. Note that by the motion of the mobile station, the resulting modeled channels are smoothly time-variant and intrinsically correlated. III. T HREE KINDS OF CLUSTERS When initialising the propagation environment, three different kinds of clusters were used: (i) local clusters, (ii) singleinteraction clusters, and (iii) multiple-interaction clusters. Figure 1 provides a schematic representation of these clusters. Their properties are reviewed in the following paragraphs.
1A

A. Local cluster The local cluster is modeled by a ring and is usually found around the mobile station, and, in pico-cell or adhoc scenarios, around the base station. Local clusters are always taken as single-bounced and are always active, thus they always contribute to the channel impulse response. Their size is given by their delay spread, specied in the model. These clusters introduce an omnidirectional azimuth spread around the respective station at low delay, which is frequently observed in measurements. B. Single-interaction clusters Similar to the local clusters, single-interaction clusters provide a single-bounce link between the BS and the MS. In macrocells, this kind of clusters is the dominant mechanism, representing reections off large buildings, hills, etc. In microcells and picocells, single-bounce scattering also occurs, though less frequently. While the MS is moving, it observes contributions from multiple single-interaction clusters that have a smooth transition from inactive to active state, and vice versa. Whether a cluster is active (i.e. accounted for in the channel response) or not is determined by the concept of visibility regions [7]. 1) Visibility regions: Every single-interaction cluster is associated with one particular visibility region. A visibility region is a circular region of the 2-D space characterised by two radii (the radius of the visibility region and the radius of a transition region), and its xed position in space. The radii are tabulated in the internal parameters of the chosen scenario. These visibility regions are placed randomly in space along the route of the MS in the model initialization. The number of visibility regions is linked to the expected number of clusters in the channel (which is also tabulated in the internal parameters) [7]. 2) Cluster position: The actual position of the cluster associated with a particular visibility region is set by the following geometric approach. First, we draw a line from the BS to the centre of the visibility region. The cluster position will be determined relative to this line. The radial distance from the BS is determined by an exponential distribution. The angle of the cluster centre relative to the line is drawn from a Gaussian distribution. The parameters for the distribution are again determined in the internal parameters. The size of the cluster is also drawn from respective distributions. Note that to accurately represent the propagation environment, the COST 273 MIMO channel model denes autocorrelations and cross correlations between certain cluster parameters. C. Multiple-interaction clusters Especially in pico cells, but also in micro-cell scenarios, contributions from multiple bounces are dominant. To account for these distributions, a special type of cluster, the multiple-interaction cluster was invented. The frequency of occurrence of the multiple-interaction clusters with respect to single-interaction clusters is inversely proportional to the

local BS cluster is only placed in picocell and ad-hoc environments

Fig. 1. Different kinds of clusters in the COST 273 MIMO channel model: local clusters (green colour), single-interaction clusters (blue colour), multipleinteraction clusters (red colour)

selection factor, Ksel , which indicates the ratio between singleinteraction clusters and multiple-interaction clusters. In macroand micro- and pico-cell scenarios, this factor is set to 1, 0.5 and 0 respectively. Similar to the case of single-interaction clusters, visibility regions are placed along the trajectory of the MS. However, the position of the multiple-interaction clusters is set differently. First, the angular position of the cluster seen from the BS is evaluated by randomly drawing from a pre-specied distribution given in the internal parameters, whereas the angular position seen from the MS is determined by drawing from another distribution. In this way, the direction of departure of the cluster (at the BS) is decoupled from its direction of arrival (at the MS). Secondly, the cluster mean delay, as well as the cluster delay spread, specifying the cluster extent in space, are drawn. Thirdly, both cluster azimuth spreads (seen from BS and MS) are drawn. Finally, the cluster is split up into its transmitter and receiver part. The distance to the BS is determined by the cluster delay spread and cluster azimuth spread at the BS, while the distance to the MS is determined in the same way by the cluster delay spread and the cluster azimuth spread at the MS. These two parts are connected by a cluster-link delay. We want to stress that the cluster spatial extent is only related to its delay-spread, whereas the azimuth spread is further related to the distance of the cluster to the MS/BS. Note that the paths within this twin cluster [8] are only specied by their amplitude, delay, azimuth of arrival, and azimuth of departure. The beauty of this approach is that the cluster has two representations in space (it is split up in Tx and Rx), but the path parameters are as few as for a single cluster.

It must be mentioned that even though every individual cluster shows a Kronecker structure (because all angles of arrival and departure are independent within each cluster), the COST 273 MIMO channel model does not create a macroscopic Kronecker structure of the channel [9], i.e. in all generality, the obtained channel correlation matrix will not be separable. Yet, it does not mean that the COST 273 model cannot be approximated with more or less accuracy in the analytical world by a Kronecker representation. IV. A N APPROACH TO PARAMETRISING THE
DIFFERENT CLUSTER TYPES

The major problem of the COST 2100 MIMO channel model is its missing parametrisation for the majority of the scenarios. Another latent issue is the quality of parametrisation some internal parameters were obtained from educated guesses. To overcome these problems, a coherent parametrisation scheme is inevitable. This section presents an approach to estimate the internal parameters of the different cluster types from measurements. A. Prerequisites For proper function this parametrisation approach needs the following prerequisites: MIMO channel measurements in multiple representative environments. The data must have been collected by a wide-band radio channel sounder with antenna arrays designed for spatial estimation of propagation paths. Preferably, the antenna arrays should support probing in the full azimuth and elevation domain. Accurate location information of the BS and trajectory of the MS in the measured environments are essential.

A high-resolution estimation algorithm estimating the complex amplitude, delay, direction of departure and direction of arrival of the propagation paths in a measured impulse response. Two good candidates for these are the Kalman-lter-extended RIMAX algorithm [10], or the SAGE-based ISIS algorithm [11]. For these algorithms it is vital to provide the calibrated antenna patterns from the channel measurements. Using either of the algorithms, the propagation paths have to be estimated from all snapshots of the representative measurements. Note that the computation time of these algorithms are quite high. A clustering-and-tracking algorithm that identies clusters in measurements. A suitable algorithm was recently presented in [3], which is based on an extension of the K-means clustering algorithm, including an initial guess and tracking of the clusters. All path estimates from the measurements need to be post processed. The identied clusters of an individual snapshot constitute the result set of this snapshot. The result sets of all time instants are the input data to the parametrisation algorithm.

the result set, such that only single-interaction clusters and multiple-interaction clusters remain. 3) Single-interaction and multiple-interaction clusters: First, we distinguish whether a cluster stems from singlebounce or multiple-bounce mechanisms using the following method (see Figure 2):

Determine the diameter of the cluster in space from its delay spread as dC = 3 c0 , where c0 denotes the speed of light. Determine the distance of the cluster from the BS and dC from the MS by dBS/MS = 2 tan(3 ) . The associated BS/MS delays are dened as BS/MS = dBS/MS /c0 . The total delay of the cluster is then described by C = C,BS + C,MS + C,link . The last term describes the link delay of the cluster. The link delay decides whether the cluster stems from a single-bounce or double-bounce reection by C,link C,link > single-interaction cluster , multiple-interaction cluster

B. Identication framework To identify the cluster parameters of the different cluster types from measurements, we propose the following framework applied to the estimated clusters of every individual measured snapshot. 1) Given the location of BS and MS, identify the LOS component, if any. Subsequently subtract the LOS cluster from the result set. 2) Given the location of BS and MS in the measurements, identify the parameters of the local cluster and subtract the contributions of the local cluster from the result set. 3) For each remaining cluster, given their delay spread, identify whether a cluster is single-bounced or multiplebounced. Subsequently, identify the cluster parameters. In the following we describe this approach in detail. 1) LOS component: In LOS scenarios, the location of the LOS component (which is also identied as cluster in the measurements) can easily be identied from the measurements using the delay, azimuth of departure and azimuth of arrival. Naturally, it should have stronger power than the surrounding clusters. After identifying its parameters, this cluster is removed from the result set. 2) Local cluster: Clustering algorithms that include power to identify clusters more accurately will naturally split up the local cluster into multiple smaller ones. However, using the knowledge of the BS and MS position, clusters contributing to the local cluster can easily be identied. The local cluster around the MS is found at a distinct angle seen from the BS, which can be obtained from the location information of MS and BS. Seen from the MS, this cluster is wide-spread. The same identication method is used for the local cluster around the BS. After having identied all clusters in the result set that contribute to the local cluster(s), they are removed from

where is set close to zero. Estimation errors and errors in identifying clusters can be accounted for by a larger value of . Note that it might sometimes happen that the link delay gets smaller than zero, which also evolves from the estimation variances of the path estimator or from the cluster identication. After having categorised the clusters, their parameters can be directly used to determine the internal parameters of the COST 273 MIMO channel model. V. S UMMARY The COST 273 MIMO channel model is well suited for link-level and system-level simulations of MIMO algorithms. Its major shortcoming is the current lack of parameters for the different propagation environments. We presented an approach to parametrise the three different kinds of clusters used in the COST 273 MIMO channel model: (i) the local clusters, (ii) single-interaction clusters, and (iii) multiple-interaction clusters. Using this approach, it is possible to consistently parametrise the model from representative MIMO channel measurements in the different propagation environments. VI. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This paper has been written in the framework of COST 2100 Pervasive Pervasive Mobile & Ambient Wireless Communications. The work of Nicolai Czink was funded by the Wiener Wissenschafts- Forschungs- und Technologiefonds (WWTF) in the ftw. project Cooperative Communications for Trafc Telematics (COCOMINT) and by the Austrian COMET program. The work of Claude Oestges is funded by the Fonds de la Recherche Scientique (FRS-FNRS).

dC

Cluster seen from BS

link Cluster seen from MS dBS dC dMS 3MS MS BS BS

Fig. 2. Distinguishing between single-interaction clusters and multiple-interaction clusters: for single-interaction clusters, link is close to zero.

3BS

MS

R EFERENCES
[1] L. Correia, Ed., Mobile Broadband Multimedia Networks. Academic Press, 2006. [2] W. Weichselberger, M. Herdin, H. Ozcelik, and E. Bonek, A stochastic MIMO channel model with joint correlation of both link ends, IEEE Transactions on Wireless Communications, vol. 5, no. 1, pp. 90100, January 2006. [3] N. Czink, R. Tian, S. Wyne, F. Tufvesson, J.-P. Nuutinen, J. Ylitalo, E. Bonek, and A. F. Molisch, Tracking time-variant cluster parameters in MIMO channel measurements, in ChinaCom 2007, Shanghai, China, August 2007. [4] Spatial channel model for Multiple Input Multiple Output (MIMO) simulations (3GPP TR 25.996), v6.1.0, Sep. 2003. [Online]. Available: www.3gpp.org [5] WINNER II interim channel models (D 1.1.1, V1.1), Wireless World Initiative New Radio (WINNER II), November 2006. [Online]. Available: https://www.ist-winner.org [6] A. F. Molisch, Wireless Communications. Wiley, 2005.

[7] H. Asplund, A. A. Glazunov, A. F. Molisch, K. I. Pedersen, and M. Steinbauer, The COST 259 directional channel model Part II. macrocells, IEEE Transactions on Wireless Communications, vol. 5, pp. 34343450, 2006. [8] H. Hofstetter, A. F. Molisch, and N. Czink, A twin-cluster MIMO channel model, in European Conference on Antennas and Propagation (EuCAP) 2006, Nice, France, 2006. [9] C. Oestges, B. Clerckx, D. Vanhoenacker-Janvier, and A. Paulraj, Impact of fading correlations on MIMO communication systems in geometrical scattering channel models, IEEE Trans. Wireless Commun., vol. 4, no. 3, pp. 11121120, May 2005. [10] J. Salmi, A. Richter, and V. Koivunen, Enhanced tracking of radio propagation path parameters using state-space modeling, in 14th European Signal Processing Conference (EUSIPCO), Florence, Italy, September 2006. [11] B. H. Fleury, M. Tschudin, R. Heddergott, D. Dahlhaus, and K. I. Pedersen, Channel parameter estimation in mobile radio environments using the SAGE algorithm, IEEE Journal on Selected Areas in Communications, no. 3, pp. 434450, 17 1999.