M. Suneetha Rani et al.

/ IJAIR ISSN: 2278-7844

Comparison of Standard Propagation Model

(SPM) and Stanford University Interim (SUI)
Radio Propagation Models
for Long Term Evolution (LTE)
M.Suneetha Rani#1 , Subrahmanyam VVRK Behara*2 , K.Suresh#3
#
Department of ECE, Chaitanya Engineering College
Visakhapatnam, A.P. INDIA
1
suneethachintala@yahoo.com
3
surech_kutcherlapati@yahoo.co.in
*
Department of ECE, BITS, Visakhapatnam, A.P. INDIA
2
subrahmanyambehara@gmail.com

Abstract cost than either 3G or WiMAX. LTE is a superior

This paper deals with comparison of SPM
(Standard propagation models) used in many planning
tools such as Atoll, Asset and Planet for several wireless
telecommunication standards and SUI (Stanford
University Interim) Radio Propagation Model
compared with many conventional models like COST
231 model, HATA, Okumura model and Ericsson 9999
model for the upcoming 4th Generation mobile network
known as LTE. Radio Propagation model is intended
for knowing cell radius which is a very important factor
during planning phase of network deployment. Cell
radius directly depends on Path loss generated by
different propagation scenarios which are modeled
using different Propagation models. Present work
makes a comparative analysis through design of
mathematical modeling of all the above mentioned
propagation models using Matlab. Frequency bands
considered are for Asia taken as 1800MHZ and
2100MHz. SPM has given the least Path loss for
different areas such as URBAN,SUBURBAN,RURAL
compared with all other propagation Models.
Keywords: Long Term Evolution, Standard Propagation
Model, Stanford University Interim Radio Propagation
Model
I INTRODUCTION
Long Term Evolution, LTE is a standard
for wireless communication of high-speed data for
mobile phones and data terminals. It is based on
the GSM/EDGE and UMTS/HSPA network
technologies, increasing the capacity and speed using
a different radio interface together with core network
improvements. LTE technology is a third option
worth considering two technology options 3G and
WiMAX to support mobile broadband., as it may
provide operators with better performance at a lower
2012 IJAIR. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
technology that offers much higher data throughput
and lower latency than 3G. Moreover, the promise of
a well-developed 3G/LTE ecosystem in the US and
Europe may result in more new devices that support
both, opening opportunities for Indian operators to
explore new business models and potentially new
sources. LTE is based on OFDMA (Orthogonal
Frequency Division Multiple Access) to be able to
reach even higher data rates and data volumes. LTE
offers many advantages over competing technologies.
However, in the Indian context there are several
questions that need to be answered before LTE can
become a credible alternative to 3G and WiMAX [3].
1.1 Spectrum availability
The LTE spectrum in India stills lack
clarity. Operators may consider deployment in BWA
(20 MHz of unpaired spectrum in 2.3 GHz) and 3G
(paired spectrum of 2x5 MHz in 2.1 GHz) spectrum
bands. In addition, approximately 120 MHz of
spectrum in the 700 MHz bandan effective and
cost efficient frequency band for LTE deployment
could be used for LTE in the future.
LTE is developed for a number of
frequency bands, ranging from 800 MHz up to 3.5
GHz. The available bandwidths are also flexible
starting with 1.4 MHz up to 20 MHz. LTE is
developed to support both the time division duplex
technology (TDD) as well as frequency division
duplex (FDD).
221
M. Suneetha Rani et al. / IJAIR
1.2 Current voice congestion
Though LTE has a lot of advantages as a
mobile broadband technology, any voice solution for
it will take a few years or more to materialize. LTE
will not serve the purpose of operators looking at 3G
spectrum options to ease congestion on their current
voice networks. These operators would have to incur
incremental capital expenditures in 2G base stations
to use 3G spectrum for LTE deployment.
1.3 Technical maturity
Many operators worldwide have already
committed to LTE and are actively preparing for
deployments in the near future. There is an
expectation that most Western operators on 3G will
eventually move to LTE. However, there has been
only limited commercial deployment of LTE to date.
Hence, Indian operators need to be careful when
considering their LTE deployment time line, given
that LTE is still a relatively new technology.
1.4 The motivation for LTE
The need to ensure the continuity of
competitiveness of the 3G system for the future,
user demand for higher data rates and quality of
service are the main motivation for LTE. The
frequency bands used in various global regions are
presented in the Table 1.1
Table 1.1
Region Frequency Bands
North America 700/800 and
1700/1900 MHz
Europe 800, 900, 1800, 2600 MHz
Asia 1800 and 2600 MHz in Asia
Australia 1800 MHz
The LTE standard can be used with many
different frequency bands. As a result, phones from
one country may not work in other countries. Users
will need a multi-band capable phone for roaming
internationally. The selection of a suitable radio
propagation model for LTE is of great importance. A
radio propagation model describes the behavior of the
signal while it is transmitted from the transmitter
towards the receiver. It gives a relation between the
distance of transmitter and receiver and the path loss.
Path loss depends on the condition of environment
(urban, suburban, rural, dense urban, open, etc.)
operating frequency, atmospheric conditions,
indoor/outdoor and the distance between the
transmitter and receiver.
In this paper a comparison is made between
SUI and SPM models in different terrains to find out
the model having least path loss in a particular terrain
in coverage point of view.
2012 IJAIR. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
ISSN: 2278-7844
II RADIO PROPAGATION MODELS
Radio planning tools have interfaces for
external propagation prediction models, and a large
number of different propagation models are
commercially available. Radio planning tools also
have internal propagation models.
The internal models that are used in cellular
network planning are typically based on the
Okumura-Hata (O-H) formulas. For a given
frequency band, the Okumura-Hata formulas are
simple functions of distance, but the effect of the
digital map is included by adding antenna height,
diffraction and clutter corrections into the basic
Okumura-Hata loss. The exact implementation of the
antenna height, diffraction and clutter corrections as
well as other possible adjustments varies from one
planning tool to another.
To find an accurate model for propagation
losses is a leading issue when planning a mobile
radio network. Two strategies for predicting
propagation losses are in use these days: one is to
derive an empirical propagation model from
measurement data and the other is to use a
deterministic propagation model.
2.1 Standard Propagation Model
Propagation models in Asset and Atoll are
based on Okumura-Hata models which support
frequencies higher than 1500 MHz. These models in
Asset and Atoll are termed as standard propagation
models. Standard Propagation Model (SPM) is based
on empirical formulas and a set of parameters are set
to their default values[1]. However, they can be
adjusted to tune the propagation model according to
actual propagation conditions.
SPM is based on the following formula[1]
= 1 + 2 + 3 ) +
4 +5 (
+ 6 +
-------------(1)
For hilly terrain, the correction path loss
when transmitter and receiver are in LOS is
given by
= 1 + 2 + 3 +
5 + 6 +
+ -------------(2)
When transmitter and receiver are not in
line of sight NLOS, the path loss formula is
= 1 + 2 +
3 + 4 +
5 + 6 +
-------------(3)
222
M. Suneetha Rani et al. / IJAIR ISSN: 2278-7844

Where, The path loss in SUI model can be described as

1 = frequency constant .
2 = Distance attenuation constant . PL= A+ 10 log (/) + + + ---------(4)
d =distance between the receiver and transmitter (m). where
3 , 4 = Correction coefficient of height of mobile PL represents Path Loss in dBs, d is the distance
station antenna between the transmitte and receiver, is the
Diffractiion loss: loss due to diffraction over an reference distance (Here its value is 100), is the
obstructed path (dB). frequency correction factor, is the Correction
5 , 6 = Correction coefficient of height of base factor for Base station height, S is shadowing and is
station antenna. the path loss component and it is described as
c
= correction coefficient of clutter = a bhb + -------------(5)
hb
attenuation, the signal strength of a given
point is modified according to the clutter class at
Where hb is the height of the base station and a, b and
this point and is irrelevant to the
c represent the terrain for which the values are
clutter class in the transmission path. All losses in
selected from the above table.
the transmission path are included in 4d
the median loss. A = 20 log o -------------(6)

hm , hb = effective height of antenna in mobile
station and base station respectively, Where A is the free space path loss while do is the
unit: m distance between Tx and Rx and is the wavelength,
In radio transmissions, the value of K varies The correction factor for frequency and base station
according to terrains, features and environment of height are as follows:
cities. f h
Xf =6 log , X h = 10.8 log r --(7) & (8)
2000 2000
= ().
f(clutter)= average of weighted losses due to clutter. Where f is the frequency in MHz, and hr is the height
Table 2.1 K-Parameters for a Metropolitan City in India(Asia) of the receiver antenna. This expression is used for
terrain type A and B. For terrain C, the below
K Dense Sub- High expression is used.
Values Urban Urban urban Rural ways h
Xh = - 20 log ( r ),
K1 16.375 17.575 17.675 5.275 26.625 2000
K2 48 45.9 44.9 48 40.1 S = 0.65(log f)2 1.3 log f + --------(9) & (10)
K3 5.83 5.83 5.83 5.83 5.83
Here dB for rural and suburban
K4 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8
environments(Terrain A & B) and 6.6 dB for urban
K5 -6.55 -6.55 -6.55 -6.55 -6.55
environment (Terrain C).
K6 0 0 0 0 0
Kclutter 1 1 1 1 1 2.3 Free Space Loss Model
2.2 Stanford University Interim (SUI) Model In telecommunication, free-space path loss
Stanford University Interim (SUI) model is (FSPL) is the loss in signal strength of an
developed for IEEE 802.16 by Stanford electromagnetic wave that would result from a line-
University[2]. It is used for frequencies above of-sight path through free space (usually air), with no
1900MHz. In this propagation model, three different obstacles nearby to cause reflection or diffraction. It
types of terrains or areas are considered(Table 2.2). does not include factors such as the gain of the
These are called as terrain A,B and C. Terrain A antennas used at the transmitter and receiver, nor any
represents an area with highest path loss; it can be a loss associated with hardware imperfections. A
very dense populated region while terrain B discussion of these losses may be found in the article
represents an area with moderate path loss, a on link budget.
suburban environment. Terrain C has the least path Free-space path loss formula
loss which describes a rural or flat area. Free-space path loss is proportional to the
square of the distance between the transmitter and
Table 2.2: Different Terrains and their parameters
Parameters Terrain A Terrain B Terrain C
receiver, and also proportional to the square of the
a 4.6 4 3.6 frequency of the radio signal.
b (1/m) 0.0075 0.0065 0.005
c (m) 12.6 17.1 20 The basic equation is () = 4/ 2 -----(11)
FSPL(dB)= 32.44+ 20 log 10(d) + 20 log10(f) --(12)

2012 IJAIR. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

223
M. Suneetha Rani et al. / IJAIR
Where f is the signal frequency (in megahertz), d
is the distance from the transmitter (in km).
This equation is only accurate in the far field where
spherical spreading can be assumed. It does not hold
good when receiver is close to the transmitter.
2.4 Cost 231 Hata Model
The COST-Hata-Model is the most often
cited of the COST 231 models[5]. Also called the
Hata Model PCS Extension, it is a radio propagation
model that extends the Hata Model (which in turn is
based on the Okumura Model) to cover a more
elaborated range of frequencies. COST is a European
Union Forum for cooperative scientific research
which has developed this model accordingly to
various experiments and researches.
Coverage
Frequency: 150 MHz to 2000 MHz
Mobile Station Antenna Height: 1 up to 10m
Base station Antenna Height: 30m to 200m
Link Distance: 1 up to 30 km
Mathematical Formulation:
The COST-Hata-Model is formulated as,
Path Loss(L)= 46.3 + 33.9 log10(f) 13.82 log10(hb)
a(hm) + (44.9 - 6.55 log(hb))log10(d) + C [dB]--(13)
For suburban or rural environments:
Where,
L = Median path loss. Unit: Decibel (dB)
f = Frequency of Transmission. (MHz)
hb = Base Station Antenna effective height.Meter (m)
d = Link distance. (km)
hm = Mobile Station Antenna effective height (m)
a(hm) = Mobile station Antenna height correction
factor as described in the Hata model for
Urban Areas.
The European Co-operative for Scientific
and Technical research (EUROCOST) formed the
COST-231 working committee to develop an
extended version of the Hata model. COST-231
proposed the following formula to extend Hata's
model to 2 GHz. The parameter C is defined as 0 dB
for suburban or open environments and 3 dB for
urban environments. The parameter a(hm) is defined
for various propagation environments. Path loss
prediction could be more accurate but models are not
complex and fast calculations are possible precision
greatly depends on the city structure
2012 IJAIR. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
ISSN: 2278-7844
2.5 COST-231 Walfisch-Ikegami Model
COST-231 Walfisch-Ikegami model is an extension
of COST Hata model. It can be used for frequencies
above 2000 MHz.
Line of Site(LOS) path loss is given by following
formula
PL=42.64+26log(d)+20 log (f) -------------(14)
For NLOS condition, the path loss is given by
PL=Lo+Lrts+Lmsd -------------(15)
where
Lo is the attenuation in free space and is described as:
Lo=32.45+20 log(d)+20log(f) ---------------(16)
Lrts represents diffraction from rooftop to street and is
defined as: Lrts= 16.9 10 log w + 10 log f +
20 log hb hm + Lori --------(17)
Here Lori is a function of the orientation of the
antenna relative to the street a (in degrees) and is
defined as:
Lori= -10+0.354 a for 0<a<35 -------------(18)
Lmsd represents diffraction loss due to multiple
obstacles and is specified as
a2 + b2 = Lmsd = Lbsd + Ka + kd log d +
Kf log f 9 log sb -------------(19)
Where Lbsd = -18 log (1+ht-hb) for ht>hb
= 54+0.8 (ht-hb)2 d for ht<hb
Ka=54 for ht>hb and 54+0.8(ht-hb) for ht<hb and
d>0.5 km.
ht hb
Kd=18 + 15 for ht>hb
hb
Kd=18 for ht<hb
f
Kf=4 + k
924
Here, K=0.7 for suburban centers and 1.5 for
metropolitan centers.
2.6 Ericsson 9999 Model
This model is the extension of Hata model.
Hata model is used for frequencies upto 1900 MHz.
In this ericsson model the parameters are adjusted
according to the given scenario.
The pathloss is
= a o log d + a1 log d + a 2 log hb +
a3log(hb )logd 3.2(log11.752hr+g(f)
Where g(f) = 44.49 log(f)-4.78 ((log(f))^2 -------(20)
The values of a o , a1 , a 2 and a 3 are constant but
they can be changed according to the scenario
224
M. Suneetha Rani et al. / IJAIR ISSN: 2278-7844

(environment). The defaults values given by the mentioned previously for rural, suburban and urban
Ericsson model are shown in Table 2.3 environments. The results show that in general the
SUI and the COST-231 Hata model over-predict the
path loss in all environments. The ECC-33 model
Table 2.3 Values of , , shows the best results, especially in urban
Area/paramete ao a1 a2 a3
environments [2]. They comparison of propagation
rs
urban 36.2 30.2 1 0.
models is also being done in [10] & [11].
2 1
suburban 43.2 68.9 1 0. IV SPM INVESTIGATION METHODOLOGY
0 3 2 1
rural 45.9 100. 1 0. Our research question is to find out the radio
5 6 2 1 propagation model which will give us the least path
loss in a particular terrain. The main problem is that
III LITERATURE SURVEY LTE is using 1900 MHz and 2100 MHz frequency
bands in different regions of the world. In some
LTE is well positioned to meet the regions, frequencies of 700 MHz, 1800 MHz and
requirements of next-generation mobile networks for 2600 MHz are also considered for LTE. For these
existing 3GPP operators. It will enable operators to frequency bands, many different radio propagation
offer high performance, mass market mobile models are available that can be used in different
broadband services, through a combination of high terrains like urban, dense urban, suburban, rural etc.
bit-rates and system throughput, in both the uplink We will make a comparison between different radio
and downlink and with low latency [3]. A propagation models and find out the model that is
comprehensive set of propagation measurements best suitable in a particular terrain. The comparison is
taken at 3.5 GHz in Cambridge, UK is used to made on the basis of path loss, antenna height and
validate the applicability of the three models transmission frequency.

Table 4.1 Parameters used in simulation

S.No Parameter Value(Units)
1 Operating Frequencies(LTE Asia) 1900 & 2100 MHz
2 Distance of operation 0-30 KM
3 Base Station Heights (Urban,Sub-Urban & Rural) 30 m
4 End User Equipment Height(Mobile station Height) 3m
5 NLOS Parameters Diffraction loss,clutter
6 LOS Parameters K4=0

V RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 1900 MHz & 2100 MHz respectively. Similarly,
Figure 4 & Figure 5 are for Okumura model for 1900
In our simulation, two different operating MHz & 2100 MHz respectively. In Figure 6, the path
frequencies 1900 MHz & 2100 MHz are used. The loss for COST 231 Hata model for 1900 MHz is
average building height is fixed to 15 m while the shown. In Figure 7 & Figure 8, path loss for COST
building to building distance is 50 m and street width Walfisch-Ikegami Model is depicted for the same two
is 25 m. All the remaining parameters used in our frequencies.
simulations are described in Table 5.1. Almost all the
propagation models are available to be used both in Observations:
LOS & NLOS environments. In our simulations, to 1. SPM model has the lowest path loss in all
make the scenario more practical, NLOS is used in types of environments for 2100 MHz. shown
urban, suburban & rural conditions. But LOS in Fig.1,Fig.3,Fig.5.
condition is being considered for rural area in COST 2. SPM model has the lowest path loss in all
231 W-I model because it did not provide any types of environments for 1900 MHz.
specific parameters for rural area [11]. shown in Fig.2,Fig.4 & Fig.6
3. SUI model has a consistent path loss in all
The empirical formulas of path loss types of environments but higher
calculation as described in the earlier section are used when compared with SPM
and the path loss is plotted against the distance for
different frequencies & different BS heights. Figure 2
& Figure 3 shows the path loss for SUI model for
2012 IJAIR. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
225
M. Suneetha Rani et al. / IJAIR ISSN: 2278-7844

All other models which are not including terrain higher path loss prediction than SPM model.
specifications such as K- parameters are having
Table 5.2 Comparison of various RPMs for different areas*
Loss/Areas Frequency URBAN SUBURBAN RURAL
MHz
Free Space 2100 98.895-128.4368 98.8944 - 128.4368 98.8944 -128.4368
Loss 1900 98.0251-27.5675 98.0251-27.5675 98.0251-27.5675
COST-231 2100 138.8196- 190.8510 133.7298 -185.7611 133.7298 -185.7611
HATA 1900 137.34-189.3775 132.336-184.3672 132.336-184.3672
COST-231 W I 2100 130.9086 - 297.8233 122.1332 -178.2638 109.0444 - 147.4495
1900 128.5657-95.4804 120.9496-77.0802 108.175-146.5802
ERICSSON 2100 145.4490 -190.2762 131.6178 -233.6540 134.3678 -283.1844
9999 1900 143- 188.5502 130.0996-32.1357 132.85-281.6662
SUI 2100 127.2581 - 188.0663 101.61 - 166.6540 124.8581 - 185.6663
1900 126.128-186.9362 100.331-164.9555 123.728-184.5362
SPM 2100 76.0901 -193.1187 45.1728 - 97.2042 52.773 138.926

1900 75.220 - 192.2494 44.3035-96.3348 51.903-138.056

* Range of values taken for 0(Minimum)-30(Maximum)Km

Fig.1 Urban-2100MHz
Fig.2 Urban-1900MHz

Fig.3 Suburban-2100MHz Fig.4 Suburban-2100MHz

2012 IJAIR. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
226
M. Suneetha Rani et al. / IJAIR
Fig.5 Rural-2100MHz
Fig.6 Rural-1900MHz
VI CONCLUSION
Standard propagation model has
considerably good in terms of path loss in all the
terrains such as Urban, Suburban and Rural for both
1900 and 2100 MHz that can be used for LTE in
asia.SPM has shown the superior performance over
all other radio propagation models. Current planning
tools which are using the SPM as the propagation
model can be used for planning of the LTE network
deployment. Experimental procedures need to be
further made to this simulation and results are to be
adopted for planning of LTE in Asia.. Current
simulation is based on a metropolitan city in India
and Path loss is calculated on a generalized basis.
Stringent Experimental procedures are to be adopted
for calculating K-Values for location of interest and
to be incorporated for SPM for obtaining Path Loss.
REFERENCES
2012 IJAIR. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
ISSN: 2278-7844
[1] Hormoz Parsian, Comparison of Asset and Atoll
Cellular Planning Tools for LTE Network Planning,
AALTO UNIVERSITY-2012
[2] 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.
[3] LTE an Introduction, White paper, Ericsson AB, 2009.
[4] 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.
[5] Okumura, Y. a kol, Field Strength and its Variability
in VHF and UHF Land-Mobile Radio Service, Rev.
Elec. Comm. Lab, No.9-10, pp. 825 - 873, 1968.
[6] Hata, M, Empirical Formula for Propagation Loss in
Land Mobile Radio Services, IEEE Trans. Vehicular
Technology, VT-29, pp. 317 - 325, 1980.
[7] COST Action 231, Digital mobile radio towards future
generation systems, final report, tech. rep., European
Communities, EUR 18957, 1999.
[8] Amarasinghe K.C., Peiris K.G.A.B., Thelisinghe
L.A.D.M.D., Warnakulasuriya G.M., and Samarasinghe
A.T.L.K , Fourth International Conference on
Industrial and Information Systems, ICIIS 2009, 28 - 31
December 2009, Sri Lanka.
[9] 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.
[10] B. Ramakrishnan, R. S. Rajesh and R. S. Shaji An
Efficient Vehicular Communication Outside the City
Environments, International Journal of Next
Generation Networks (IJNGN), volume 2, December
2010.
[11] M. Shahjahan, A. Q. Abdulla Hes-Shafi, Analysis of
Propagation Models for WiMAX at 3.5 GHz, MS
thesis, Blekinge Institute of Technology, Karlskrona,
Sweden, 2009.
[12] N. Shabbir, H. Kasihf, Radio Resource Management
in WiMAX, MS thesis, Blekinge Institute of
Technology, Karlskrona, Sweden, 2009.
[13] Khaled Elleithy and Varun Rao, Femto Cells: Current
Status and Future Directions International Journal of
Next Generation Networks (IJNGN), volume 3, March
2011.
[14] H. R. Anderson, Fixed Broadband Wireless System
Design, John Wiley & Co., 2003.
[15] G. E. Athanasiadou, A. R. Nix, and J. P. McGeehan, A
microcellular ray-tracing propagation model and
evaluation of its narrowband and wideband
predictions, IEEE Journal on Selected Areas in
Communications, Wireless Communications series, vol.
18, pp. 322335, March2000.
[16] Khaled Elleithy and Varun Rao, Femto Cells: Current
Status and Future Directions International Journal of
Next Generation Networks (IJNGN), volume 3, March
2011.
[17] V. Erceg, L. J. Greenstein, et al., An empirically based
path loss model for wireless channels in suburban
environments, IEEE Journal on Selected Areas of
Communications, vol. 17, pp. 12051211, July1999.
[18] M. A. Alim, M. M. Rahman, M. M. Hossain, A. Al-
Nahid, Analysis of Large-Scale Propagation Models
for Mobile Communications in Urban Area,
International Journal of Computer Science and
Information Security (IJCSIS), Vol. 7, No. 1, 2010.
227
M. Suneetha Rani et al. / IJAIR ISSN: 2278-7844

[19] F. D. Alotaibi and A. A. Ali, April 2008, Tuning of lee

path loss model based on recent RF measurements in
400 MHz conducted in Riyadh city, Saudi Arabia, The
Arabian Journal for Science and Engineering, Vol 33,
no 1B, pp. 145152.

2012 IJAIR. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

228