Electromagnetic Propagation Environment Effects On The WiMAX Communication System

1
1

Hani Wadie Badri, 1Said Ghnimi, 1Ali Gharsallah

Unit de Recherche: Circuits et Systmes Electroniques HF, Facult des Sciences de Tunis, FST badri.hani@live.fr, said.ghnimi@fst.rnu.tn, ali.gharsallah@fst.rnu.tn

Abstract The goal of this paper is to study the electromagnetic environment of WiMAX (worldwide interoperability for microwave access) communication system working at 3.5 GHz. For this, we have analyzed and compared the radio signal loss in urban, suburban and rural environment with different receiver antenna height. The path loss prediction is obtained by three propagation models: SUI (Stanford University Interim), COST Hata and Ericsson model. The analysis was made using MATLAB software. The results shows that in general SUI model predict the lowest path loss, especially in suburban environments.

prediction in different environments and section IV contains conclusion and recommendations for further studies. II. Formulation

A. Stanford University Interim (SUI) Model The SUI prediction model is developed under the IEEE 802.16 Broadband Wireless Access Working Group. This model is useful for WiMAX systems with small cells, BS at low heights and high frequencies. The SUI model is optimized for a frequency of 1.9 GHz [6]. The correction parameters are allowed to extend this model up to 3.5 GHz band [4]. In general, for all types of terrain, the path loss is given by the following equation [7].

Keywords; WiMAX, path loss, propagation models, SUI, COST Hata, Ericsson. I. Introduction WiMAX is a certification mark for products based on the IEEE 802.16 standard [1-11] this system is a telecommunications technology which enables wireless transmission of voice and data and provide wireless access in urban, suburban and rural environment with non line of sight (NLOS) propagation [2]. This scenario of propagation introduce multipath, which decreases the signal strength [3]. In this case an estimation of the path loss is necessary to compensate the power propagation of the signal. There is many path loss models used to predict the path loss in different environment in this paper we have chose to study three models: SUI, COST Hata and Ericsson model. In the literature several works are edited to evaluate the fixed and mobile WiMAX system. In a previous study Snjeana Rimac-Drlje [4] analyzed empirical models suitability for the receiving power prediction in complex urban environments for a WiMAX system working at 3.5 GHz of city Osijek in Croatia. He had used four propagation models: SUI, COST 231-Hata, Macro model and Ericsson model. Similar studies were also conducted by Mardeni.R [3] in Malaysia at the bands of 2360-2390MHz, Purnima K. Sharma [5] in India at 900 MHz and 1800 MHz frequency. Bachir Belloul [2] studied the performance of co-located WiMAX transmitter sites operating at 2.5 and 3.5GHz. Nickolas LaSorte [6] presents an evaluation of a deployed WiMAX system operating in the 4.9GHz Public Safety Band in the City of Tulsa. Therefore, the organization of this paper is as follows, in section II, the theoretical formulation of the tree models (SUI, COST Hata and Ericsson model) is given, in section III, we present the results and discussion of path loss

d PL = A +10 log10 ( ) + X f + X h + s do Where the parameters are [7-8] 4 d 0 A = 2 0 lo g 1 0 : the wavelength (m)

for d > d0

(1)

(2)

And the path loss exponent is given by [8] c = a b hb + hb

(3)

= 2 for free space propagation in urban environment, in urban NLOS environment 3<<5, and for indoor propagation >5 [4] do =100 m d: distance between the BS and receiving antenna (m) hb : base station antenna height (m) S : correction for shadowing (dB) The values of constants a, b and c depend on the terrain category as defined in Tab.1 [9].

ahm = (1.11log 10 ( f ) 0.7) hr (1.5 log 10 f 0.8)

Tab.1: Values of constants a, b and c of the SUI model [9]. SUI parameters a b c 4.6 0.0075 12.6 Terrain A Terrain B 4 0 .0065 17.1 Terrain C 3.6 0.005 20

(8)

Where hr is the receiver antenna height. C. Ericsson model

The frequency correction factor X f and the correction for receiver antenna height X h for the model are expressed in [9].
X
f

Ericsson model or also model 9999 [2-4] is provided by Ericsson company. He is an extension of Hata model, his parameters are changeable according to the propagation environment. The path loss in dB given by Ericsson model is the following equation [7].
PL = a0 + a1 .log 10 ( d ) + a 2 .log10 ( hb ) + a3 log10 ( hb ).log10 ( d ) 3.2(log 10 (11.75 hr ) 2 ) + g ( f )

= 6 lo g

10

f ( ) 2000
for terrain A and for terrain C B

(9)

(4)

hr ) 10.8log10 ( 2000 Xh = h 20log10 ( r ) 2000

g( f ) is given by the expression

g ( f ) = 44.49log10 ( f ) 4.78(log10 ( f ))2

(5) Where f : Frequency Transmitter antenna height Receiver antenna height [MHz] [m] [m]

(10)

Where f

hr

: Frequency : Height of receiver antenna

[MHz] [m]

hr : hb :

B. COST-231 Hata model COST Hata model is an extension of the Hata-Okumura model [3, 8]. This model is used for macros cells, it is mainly done for frequencies below 2 GHz [5]. In order to use it for higher frequencies (up to 6 GHz) he was introduced corrections. The COST Hata model path loss in dB equation is given by [8].
PL = 46.3 + 33.9 log10 ( f ) 13.82 log10 ( hb ) ahm + (44.9 6.55 log( hb )) log 10 d + cm

The parameters a0 , a1 , a2 and a3 are constants depend on the environment of propagation their values are given by the tab. 2 [10]
Tab. 2: Values of a0 , a1 , a 2 and

a3 of Ericsson model [10]

a2
12,0

Ericsson parameters urban suburban rural

a0
36,2

a1
32,2

a3
0,1

43,20 45,95

68,93 100,6

12,0 12,0

0,1 0,1

(6)

d: distance f: frequency hb : base station antenna height

[km] [MHz] [m]

III.

SIMULATION RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

The simulation parameters are presented in the Tab.3

Tab.3: Simulation parameters Parameters Base station transmission power Receiver antenna power Transmitter antenna height Receiver antenna height Frequency Distance between Rx and Tx Correction for shadowing Values 43 dBm 30 dBm 40 m in urban and suburban environments and 30 m in rural environment 2 m and 8 m 3.5 GHz 5 km 8.2 dB in suburban and rural environments and 10.6 dB urban environment

cm Constant term ( cm = 0 dB in suburban and rural areas, cm = 3 dB in urban areas).

a hm

is a corrective term depending on the height of the

receiving antenna. For an urban environment ah m is:

ahm = 3.20(log10 (11.75hr )) 2 4.79 for f > 400 MHz

(7)

For suburban and rural environments ah m is:

We have used these parameters to calculate the path loss in different propagation environments.
path loss in suburban environment

A. Results in urban environment The results of path loss for different models at 2m and 8m receiver antenna height in urban environment are presented in the Fig. 1.
path loss in urban environment 180 170 160

200

180

160 path loss (dB)

140

120 sui 2m sui 8m COST Hata 2m COST Hata 8m Ericsson 2m Ericsson 8m 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 distance between Tx and Rx (km) 4 4.5 5

100

80
150 path loss (dB) 140 130 120 110 100 90 sui 2m sui 8m COST Hata 2m COST Hata 8m Ericsson 2m Ericsson 8m 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 distance between Tx and Rx (km) 4 4.5 5

60

Fig.2: Path loss of different models in suburban environment

The Tab.5 presents the path loss at 3 km distance between the transmitting and receiving antenna in suburban environment.
Tab.5: Path loss values at 3 km distance in suburban environment SUI 126,9 120,4 COST Hata 158,8 139.4 Ericsson 172 168,1

Fig.1: Path loss of different models in urban environment

The Tab.4 shows the path loss at 3 km distance between the transmitting and receiving antenna in urban environment.
Tab.4: Path loss values at 3 km distance in urban environment 2m 8m SUI 153 140,9 COST Hata 162,7 156,2 Ericsson 146,5 142,6

2m 8m

From these results we can see that the Ericsson model predict the lowest path loss when the receiver antenna height is 2m (146.5 dB). By changing the receiver antenna height to 8m, note that the SUI model showed the lowest prediction (140.9 dB). The path loss showed by the COST Hata model is the highest in the both cases 2 and 8m. The effect of the changing of the receiver antenna height is more remarkable for the SUI model, the prediction of path loss has decreased from 153 dB at 2m to 140.9 dB at 8m, but in case of Ericsson and COST Hata models it has not much influence. B. Results in suburban environment The results of path loss for different models at 2m and 8m receiver antenna height in suburban environment are presented in the Fig. 2.

By observing the graphical representation of simulation shown in Fig.2 and the values of path loss at 3 km distance in the Tab.5. We concluded that the SUI model shows the lowest path loss prediction in both cases (2m, 8m) of receiver antenna height respectively (126.9 dB, 120.4 dB). The Ericsson model predicts the highest path loss (172 dB, 168.1 dB). In suburban environment the changing of receiver antenna height has a huge effect on the COST Hata model prediction compare to other models, the path loss has decreased from 158.8 dB at 2m to 139.4 dB at 8m. C. Results in rural environment The results of path loss for different models at 2m and 8m receiver antenna height in rural environment are presented in the Fig. 3.

path loss in rural environment 220 200 180 160 140 120 100 80 60 sui 2m sui 8m COST Hata 2m COST Hata 8m Ericsson 2m Ericsson 8m

REFERENCES
IEEE Standard for Local and Metropolean Area Networks Part 16: Air Interface for Fixed Broadband Wireless Access Systems IEEE Std 802.16-2004 (Revision of IEEE Std 802.16-2001). 2004: p. 1893 [2] Belloul, B., Aragon-Zaval, A., Saunders, S. R. Measurements and comparison of WiMAX radio coverage at 2.5GHz and 3.5GHz, 3rd European Conference on Antennas and Propagation, Berlin 2009 [3] Mardeni.R, T. Siva Priya Optimised COST-231 Hata Models for WiMAX Path Loss Prediction in Suburban and Open Urban Environments Modern Applied Science Vol. 4, No. 9; September 2010 [4] Snjeana Rimac-Drlje, Josip Milanovi, Stanislav Strenjak Receiving Power Level Prediction for WiMAX Systems on 3.5 GHz IEEE Wireless Communications and Networking Conference, 2009. WCNC 2009 [5] Purnima K. Sharma, R.K.Singh Comparative Analysis of Propagation Path loss Models with Field Measured Data International Journal of Engineering Science and Technology Vol. 2(6) 2010 [6] N. LaSorte, W. Barnes, B. Zigreng and H. Refai, Performance Evaluation of a Deployed WiMAX System Operating in the 4.9 GHz Public Safety Band, IEEE Consumer Communications and Networking Conference, January 2009, pp. 1-5. [7] Josip Milanovic, Rimac-Drlje S, Bejuk K, Comparison of propagation model accuracy for WiMAX on 3.5GHz, 14th IEEE International conference on electronic circuits and systems, Morocco, pp. 111-114. 2007. [8] V.S. Abhayawardhana, I.J. Wassel, D. Crosby, M.P. Sellers, M.G. Brown, Comparison of empirical propagation path loss models for fixed wireless access systems, 61th IEEE Technology Conference, Stockholm, pp. 73-77, 2005 [9] T. Javornik, G. Kandus, A. Hrovat, and I. Ozimek, Comparison of wimax coverage at 450mhz and 3.5ghz, International Conference on on Software in Telecommunications and Computer Networks 2005. [10] Simic I. lgor, Stanic I., and Zrnic B., Minimax LS Algorithm for Automatic Propagation Model Tuning, Proceeding of the 9th Telecommunications Forum (TELFOR 2001), Belgrade, Nov.2001 [11] O. Grondalen, P. Gronsund, T. Breivik, and P. Engelstad. Fixed WiMAX eld trial measurements and analyses. In Proc. 16th IST Mobile and Wireless Communications Summit, pages 15, July 2007. [1]

path loss (dB)

0.5

1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 distance between Tx and Rx (km)

4.5

Fig.3: Path loss of different models in rural environment

The Tab.6 shows the values of path loss at 3 km distance in rural environment.
Tab.6: Path loss values at 3 km distance in rural environment 2m 8m SUI 153 ,8 141,5 COST Hata 160,9 141,5 Ericsson 191,3 187,5

In this environment, at 2m receiver antenna height, SUI model showed the lowest path loss prediction (153,8dB). At 8m receiver antenna height both the COST Hata and SUI models showed the lowest path loss (141,5dB). The path loss given by Ericsson model is very far from that given by the others models (191.3 dB, 187.5 dB). Increase the receiver antenna heights decreased the path loss for SUI and COST Hata models but not for Ericsson model.

IV.

CONCLUSION

In this work, we have evaluated the path loss prediction of three different propagation models in urban, suburban and rural environment for WiMAX system on 3.5 GHz frequency. The result of analysis allows us to see that the path loss prediction given by the propagation models used in this study depends on the type of environment of propagation and the receiver antenna height. The results shows that at 3.5 GHz, the SUI model give the lowest prediction, especially in suburban environment and increase the receiver antenna height will decrease the path loss.