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

net/publication/241189381

Frequency analysis of path loss models on WIMAX

Article · July 2011

DOI: 10.1109/CEEC.2011.5995815

CITATIONS READS

24 762

4 authors, including:

Tughrul Arslan John Thompson

The University of Edinburgh The University of Edinburgh
482 PUBLICATIONS   3,246 CITATIONS    388 PUBLICATIONS   8,045 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Ahmet Erdogan
The University of Edinburgh
222 PUBLICATIONS   1,735 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

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

Low Power MEMS switch design View project

Masupe PhD View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Tughrul Arslan on 09 September 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 2011 3rd Computer Science and Electronic Engineering Conference (CEEC) University of Essex, UK

Frequency Analysis of Path Loss Models on WIMAX

Mohammed Alshami, Tughrul Arslan, John Thompson, and Ahmet T. Erdogan
School of Engineering
The University of Edinburgh, King’s Buildings, Mayfield Road
Edinburgh, EH9 3JL, UK
{m.h.alshami, t.arslan, john.thompson, ahmet.erdogan}@ed.ac.uk

Abstract—WIMAX signal throughput and area coverage range
are the most important factors that will affect the quality of
broadband access services in mobile systems. This paper presents
a comprehensive study of frequency analysis for path loss on
mobile WIMAX presented to achieve large throughput and wide
coverage to a big number of users. In this paper we have
calculated the path loss values based on the variation of WIMAX
standard frequency in the range of 2 to 6 GHz, and a fixed
distance of 5 km from the transmit station to the receive station
in urban, suburban, rural and free space environments. The
paper discusses and implements Okumura, Hata, Cost-231,
Ericsson, Erceg, Walfish, Ecc-33, Lee and the simplified free
space path loss models. All the models applied in this paper are
used to predict the propagation loss for WIMAX.
I. INTRODUCTION
WIMAX (Worldwide Interoperability Microwave Access)
is one of the most promising emerging cellular mobile
technologies around today [1]. The signal propagation path is
the path from WIMAX base station (BS) antenna to WIMAX
mobile station (MS) antenna that is expected to be located at 5
km distance from WIMAX BS. Mobile WIMAX is mobile
wireless, under the 802.16e-2005 standard, that delivers 75
Mbps over 50 km.
WIMAX specification consist of orthogonal frequency
division multiple access (OFDMA) with 2048 subcarriers
(1536 data subcarriers to carry data symbols, 192 pilot
subcarriers to carry pilot symbols, 160 Guard subcarriers, 1
DC subcarrier and the remaining as nulls subcarriers).
QPSK1/2, QPSK3/4, 16QAM1/2, 16QAM3/4, 64QAM2/3 and
64QAM3/4 modulations are used. The channel bandwidth can
be 1.25 MHz, 3.5 MHz, 7 MHz 14 MHz or 20 MHz. Also, the
number of FFT sizes can be chosen as 2048 (backward
compatible to IEEE Standard 802.16-2004), 1024, 512 and
128 shall be supported.
As with any new technology, there are many issues that
affect the implementation and the utilization of WIMAX. The
most important issue is the path loss of signal propagation due
to inappropriate frequency and distance attenuation. The signal
path loss in crowded cities with large buildings is different
than the open cities or villages. Furthermore, shadowing and
interference from neighboring cells are specific factors which
limit the coverage and performance of WIMAX networks.
WIMAX will largely depend on the actual data rates and
ranges that can be achieved. Different path loss models have
been used in many cellular systems, but they have not been
analyzed for WIMAX to evaluate the link budget, the power
outage probability and the cell coverage area.
In this paper we evaluate the path loss at various
environments in WIMAX for frequencies 2 to 6 GHz, and
fixed distance of 5 km. We characterize the variation in path
loss over distance for various environments. In this study,
since the transmission from the BS to the MS is small enough,
so it will not be affected by the earth’s curvature. Link budget
is used to find and estimate the coverage area of a cellular
system cell. Path loss is used to calculate the link budget.
Therefore link budget calculations could be performed using
our results of WIMAX. In addition, path loss can be used to
calculate and estimate the required number of BS’s for
different environments.
II. CONSIDERED PATH LOSS MODELS
In this paper, we studied a number of path loss models for
predicting the propagation loss for WIMAX. In all models, f is
the carrier frequency in MHz except for the ECC33 model in
GHz; implemented in the range 2 to 6 GHz, d is the distance
between the transmitter WIMAX Cell BS and the receiver MS
user in km for all models except for Erceg model in meters
(which is fixed to 5 km in our simulation), the reference
distance d0 is 100 m, the BS antenna height hb is equal to 80m
for all models and 50m for Walfish , the MS antenna height hm
is equal to 10m for all models and 3m for Walfish, Gb and Gm
are BS and MS height antenna gain factors chosen to be 18
dB, a(hm) is the MS antenna correction factor. The shadowing
margin s is chosen as 10 dB and added in the path loss to all
models in our simulation.
A. Simplified Model
The simplified Model is used for free space path loss
[1][2][10].
PLFS = 32.45+ 20 log10 (d) + 20 log10 (f) [dB]
where d is in km and f is in MHz.
B. Okumura Model
Okumura’s model is used to predict the path loss in
suburban and rural environments.

978-1-4577-1301-9/11/$26.00 ©2011 IEEE 1

 PL = PLfs + Amn(f,d) – G(hb) – G(hm) – GAREA PL = PLUrban- 2 * (log10 (f/ 28)) ^ 2 - 5.4
where Amn(f,d) is the median attenuation relative to free space,
GAREA is the gain due to the type of environment, extracted as
Scenario 3: Rural Cost-231 Path loss
in [12].
PL =PLUrban-4.78(log10(f) ^2)+18.33log10(f)- 40.98
G(hb)= 20 log10 (hb/200) for 10 m < hb < 1000 m
MS antenna correction factors a(hm) for all is:
G(hm)= 10 log10 (hm/3) for hm ≤ 3 m
a(hm) = (1.11log10(f) -0.7)hm - (1.56 log10(f) - 0.8)
G(hm)= 20 log10 (hm/3) for 10 m > hm > 3 m
The path loss exponent for the predictions done by COST-231
C. Ericsson Model Hata model is given by:
The planning network engineers use this model to predict α = (44.9 - 6.55log10 (hb)) / 10
the path loss in urban, suburban, and rural areas [13].
PL = a0 + a1log10 (d) + a2log10 (hb) + a3log10 (hb) F. Walfish Model
2 The Walfish Model is used for free space, large and
* log10 (d) – 3.2 (log10 (11.75hm) ) + g (f)
medium cities [1] [12].
g (f) = 44.49log10 (f ) – 4.78(log10(f))2
Scenario 1: Free Space Path loss
The values of the parameters a0, a1, a2 and a3 for different
Lfs = 32.4 + 20log10 (d) + 20log10 (f) +s
areas are given in Table I.
Scenario 2: Free Space in a deep valley Path loss
TABLE I
SUMMARY OF PARAMETERS VALUES FOR ERICSSON MODEL [12][13] Lfs = 42.6 + 26log10 (d) + 20log10 (f) +s
Environment a0 a1 a2 a3
Urban 36.2 30.2 12.0 0.1
Scenario 3: Urban Path loss
PL = Lfs + Lrts + Lmsd
Suburban 43.20* 68.93* 12.0 0.1
where Lfs is the free space loss, Lrts the roof-to-street
Rural 45.95 100.6* 12.0 0.1
* Based on the Least Square (LS) method.
diffraction and scatter loss, and Lmsd the multi screen
diffraction loss.
D. Hata Model Lrts = - 16.9 -10log10 (w) + 10log10 (f) + 20log10∆ hm
The Hata model is used to find the path loss in urban, + Lori + s, and ∆ hm = hroof - hm
suburban, and rural environments [1][2][3].
hroof = 3 * number of floors + roof (m)
Scenario 1: Urban Hata Path Loss
Lori = 4.0 – 0.114 (Φ - 55)
PL = 69.55+26.16log10 (f) - 13.82log10 (hb) + (44.9
where w is the width of the street in m and equal b/2, b is the
- 6.55log10 (hb)) log10 (d) + s - a (hm) building separation equal to 40 m in our simulation, Φ is the
Scenario 2: Suburban Hata Path Loss road orientation with respect to the direct radio path in degrees
and equal to 90 in the simulation, ∆hm is the height of MS
PL = PLUrban-2(log10 (f/28)) ^2 -5.4 relative to rooftops in m, roof height is 3 m and number of
Scenario 3: Rural Hata Path Loss floors is 10. The formula for the multi screen diffraction loss is
as follows:
PL=PLUrban-4.78(log10 (f) ^2) +18.33log10 (f) - 40.98
Lmsd =Lbsh +ka +kd log10 (d) +kflog10 (f)- 9log10 (b)
MS antenna correction factor for all scenarios is:
Lbsh = -18 log10 (1 + ∆ hb)
a (hm) = (1.11log10(f) -0.7)hm - (1.56 log10(f) - 0.8)
kf = -4 +1.5(f/925 - 1)
E. COST-231 Model where ka is the account for the increase in path loss when the
This model is derived by modifying the Hata model, and is BS antennas are below the roof tops of adjacent buildings, and
used in urban, suburban and rural environments [2][3][4][5]. equal to 54, while kd which equal to 18 and kf are to control the
dependency of the multi-screen diffraction loss on the distance
Scenario 1: Urban Cost-231 Path loss
and frequency.
PL = 46.3 + 33.9 log10 (f) - 13.82 log10 (hb) + (44.9
Scenario 4: Suburban Path loss
- 6.55 log10 (hb)) log10 (d) + s – a (hm)
Same formula as in scenario 3 except kf is
Scenario 2: Suburban Cost-231 Path loss
kf = -4 + 0.7(f/925 - 1)

2
G. Erceg Model where n is an experiment value chosen to be 3 in our
The Erceg model is used to predict the path loss in three simulation, α0 is the correction factor which is given as
type’s environments Type A, Type B and Type C follows:
[1][4][7][8][9]. α0 = α1 + α2 + α3 + α4 + α5
PL = A + 10 α log10 (d/d0) + S + Lf + Lm α1 = (hb/30.48) ^ 2
A = 20 * log10 (4πd0 f /C), α = (a – b hb + c/ hb) α2 = (hm/3) ^ k
Lf = 6.0 log10 (f /2000), α3 = (Pt/10) ^ 2
Lm = -10.8 log (hm /2000) for Erceg A and B α4 = (Gb/4)
Lm = -20 log (hm /2000) for Erceg C α 5 = Gm
where Lf is the frequency correction factor, and Lm is the MS In our simulation we used the parameter values in Table III,
correction factor. The Erceg model constant values are shown and choose the parameter k to be equal to 2.
in Table II.
TABLE II TABLE III
SUMMARY OF WIMAX PARAMETERS AND VALUES IN DB [1]
ERCEG MODEL CONSTANT VALUES
Parameter Value ( in dB)
Model
Parameters Type A Type B Type C Transmitted power (Pt) 43
a 4.6 4.0 3.6 Transmitter antenna gain (Gb) 18
b (m -1) 0.0075 0.0065 0.005
Transmitter losses (coax, connectors...) (Lt) 8
c (m) 12.6 17.1 20 Miscellaneous losses (fading margin, body loss, 10
polarization mismatch, other losses...) (LM)
Receiver antenna gain (Gm) 18
Receiver losses (coax, connectors...) (Lr) 4
H. ECC-33 Model
The ECC-33 model developed by the Electronic
III. SIMULATION RESULTS
Communication Committee (ECC) is appropriate for suburban
and small urban areas [4]. In this simulation we have calculated the path loss in four
different environments; urban, suburban, rural and free space.
PL = PLfs + PLbm − Gb – Gm The desired WIMAX cell BS distance was fixed to 5 km and
PLfs = 92.4 + 20 log10 (d) + 20 log10 (f) the carrier frequency f was varied in the range 2 to 6 GHz.

PLbm = 20.41+9.83log10(d)+7.894log10(f)+
9.56(log10 (f)) ^2
Gb = log10(hb/200){13.98 + 5.8[log10(d)]^2}
Gm = [42.57 + 13.7 log10 (f)][log10(hm) − 0.585]
where PLfs and PLbm are the free space path loss and the basic
median path loss.
I. Lee Model
Lee’s Model is used to predict the path loss in urban,
suburban, rural and free space areas [11].
Scenario 1: Urban Path loss
PL = 123.77 + 30.5 log10 (d) +10 n log10 (f/900) - α0
Scenario 2: Suburban Path loss
PL = 99.86 +38.4 log10 (d) +10 n log10 (f/900) - α0
Scenario 3: Rural Path loss
PL = 86.12 +43.5 log10 (d) +10 n log10 (f/900) - α0
Scenario4: Free Space Path loss
PL = 96.92 + 20 log10 (d) + 10 n log10 (f/900) - α0
Based on Fig. 1, Fig. 2, Fig. 3 and Fig. 4 we extracted the
simulation path loss values for urban, suburban, rural and free
space environments at 3.5 GHz, and load them to Table IV
which contains a summary for the simulation path loss data at
3.5 GHz and 5 km distance.
In addition, based on [4] and [10] we extracted the real
measured field path loss data for urban, suburban and rural
areas at 3.5 GHz, and load them to Table V which contains a
summary for the real field measured path loss data at 3.5 GHz
and 5 km distance. Based on Table IV and Table V, we
conclude that Erceg, Hata and cost-231 models are giving the
minimum path loss in urban area. In suburban Erceg, cost-231,
Hata, ECC-33 and Okumura models are giving the minimum
path loss. Furthermore, Erceg and Hata are showing the
minimum path loss in rural area. Our results are good and
valid and can be assumed in the preliminary design of
WIMAX cellular system. Moreover the path loss for suburban
areas is lower than the urban path loss values because
suburban areas are composed of residential areas and gardens
areas, while urban areas are the cities with all their complete
facilities. Similarly, rural path loss values are lower than
suburban path loss values because the rural areas are
composed of open land with small buildings, farms, and free
spaces.

3
 220 150
PLSimplifiedFS
PLLeeFS
145
200 PLWalfishFS

140
180
135

[dB]
[dB]

160
130

PL
140
PL

125
PLEricssonUrban
120 PLHataUrban
120
PLErcegTypeA
PLWalfishUrban
100 PLCost231Urban 115
PLLeeUrban
110
80 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 5.5 6
2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 5.5 6
F [GHZ]
F [GHZ]

Fig. 1. Urban Path Loss Models in WIMAX. Fig. 4. Free Space Path Loss Models in WIMAX.

TABLE IV
SUMMARY OF SIMULATION PATH LOSS DATA AT 3.5 GHZ
220
AND 5 KM DISTANCE
Propagation Path Loss Path Loss Value
200
Environment Model ( in dB)
180 Urban Walfish 192.5
Ericsson 174.7
160 Lee 166.5
Cost-231 145.2
[dB]

140
Hata 141.0
Erceg (TypeA) 091.5
PL

PLEricssonSuburban Suburban Ericsson 203.6

120 PLOkumuraSuburban Walfish 184.7
PLHataSuburban
Lee 152.6
100 PLErcegTypeB
Okumura 150.9
PLWalfishSuburban
PLCost231Suburban
ECC-33 140.9
80
PLECC33Suburban Hata 134.7
PLLeeSuburban Cost-231 131.0
60
2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 5.5 6
Erceg (TypeB) 083.6
F [GHZ] Rural Ericsson 207.3
Lee 138.8
Fig. 2. Suburban Path Loss Models in WIMAX. Okumura 136.0
Hata 104.9
Erceg (TypeC) 058.3
220 Free Space Lee 139.6
Walfish 127.3
200 Simplified 117.4
PLEricssonRural
180 PLOkumuraRural TABLE V
PLHataRural SUMMARY OF FIELD MEASURED PATH LOSS DATA AT 3.5 GHZ
160 PLErcegTypeC
AND 5 KM DISTANCE
PLLeeRural
Propagation Path Loss in [4] Path Loss in [10]
[dB]

140
Environment (dB) (dB)
120 Urban 140.0 158.0
PL

Suburban 129.0 151.0

100
Rural 112.0 131.0
80

60 In Fig. 5 we have calculated WIMAX link budget based on

our path loss value of Hata model at the urban environment
40
2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 5.5 6 and using the following formula [1].
F [GHZ]

Fig. 3. Rural Path Loss Models in WIMAX.

Pr = Pt + Gb - Lt - PL - Lm + Gm – Lr
where, PL is the path loss value from Hata model at the urban
area and the other parameters are extracted from Table III.

4
 -79
In Fig. 7 we have calculated the cell coverage area of
-80
WIMAX based on our path loss values from COST-231 Hata
-81 model at the urban area and the parameters of Table III using
the following formula [14].
-82
C = Q (a) + exp ((2 – 2ab) / b^2) Q ((2 – ab) / b)
[dB]

-83

a = (pmin – PR) / σ
-84
Pr

-85
b = 10 α log10 (e) / σ

-86
PR = pt + 10log10k – 10 α log10 (d/d0),

-87
-88
136 137
Fig. 5. Link Budget for Urban Hata Model in WIMAX.
In Fig. 6, we have calculated the outage probability of
WIMAX based on our path loss values from COST-231 Hata
model at the urban area and the parameters of Table III using
the following formulas [14]
Pout (Pr(d) ≤ pmin) =1 – Q(pmin – (pt + 10log10k – 10 α
α = (44.9 - 6.55log10 (hb)) / 10
σ 2 = 1/3 [Mmeasured(di) – Mmodel(di)] 2
K = 20 log10 (λ / 4πd0)
where α is the path loss exponent for the predictions obtained
where PR is the received power at the cell boundary. In case,
pmin = PR, then a = 0, and
138 139 140
PL
141
[dB]
142 143 144 145
C = ½ + exp (2/ b^2) Q (2 / b)
The cell coverage area is the expected percentage of area
within a cell that has received power above the given
minimum. In Fig. 7, PR is equal to -95.4304 dB, in such case
the minimum received requirement power (pmin) should be
below or at least equal to PR to get good percentage of cell
coverage area. Therefore at the WIMAX with 5 km distance if
we take pmin at -100 dB; the percentage of cell coverage area is
98.6% which is typical and good result.
log10 (d/d0)) / σ)
Moreover, if we take pmin at -109 dB; the percentage of cell
coverage area is 99.9999% which is better result. Furthermore,
if we take pmin at -110 dB; the percentage of cell coverage area
is virtually 100% which is the best result.
100

by COST-231 Hata model [2], σ is the standard deviation of 90

shadow fading and k is a constant which depends on antenna
% Percentage of Cell Coverage Area

80
characteristics and the average channel attenuation.
70
The parameter pmin is the target minimum received power
60
level, where below pmin the performance becomes
unacceptable. In our simulation as shown in Fig. 6, with path 50

loss, shadowing and 5 km distance, when pmin is -13 dB the 40

outage probability is 1% which is typical for WIMAX
30
preliminary system design.
20
100
10
90
0
-120 -110 -100 -90 -80 -70 -60 -50 -40
80
% percentage of Outage Probability

Pmin (Minimum Received Power Requirement) [dB]

70
Fig. 7. Cell Coverage Area in WIMAX.
60

50

40
IV. CONCLUSIONS
30
In this paper, we have presented simulation results for
propagation loss from WIMAX BS to WIMAX MS for
20
various models based on frequency band in the range of 2 to 6
10
GHz. Comparing our results against the real measured data
0
-15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15
field in [4] and [10], our simulation results closely match the
Pmin (the target minimum received power level) [dB] real measurement data.
Fig. 6. Power Outage in WIMAX. Based on our simulation results, we conclude that

5
amongst the considered models: Erceg, Hata and Cost-231
models are giving the minimum path loss in urban
environment. Moreover Erceg, Cost231, Hata, Lee and
Okumura models are giving the minimum path loss in
suburban environment. Erceg, Hata, Okumura and Lee models
are giving the minimum path loss in rural environments.
Similarly the simplified model is giving the minimum path
loss in free space area.
Furthermore based on our results of the path loss values
we calculated the link budget for the Hata model at the urban
area. Similarly, based on our results of the path loss values
from Cost-231 Hata model at the urban area we calculated the
best outage probability and the best cell coverage area of
WIMAX system, which are essential in WIMAX preliminary
system design.
REFERENCES
[1] Jeffrey G. Andrews, Arunabha Ghosh, and Rias Muhamed, (2007).
Fundamentals of WiMAX Understanding Broadband Wireless
Networking. USA: Westford. Massachusetts.
[2] Armoogum V., Soyjaudah K.M.S., Mohamudally N., Fogarty T.,
“Comparative Study of Path Loss Using Existing Models for Digital
Television Broadcasting for Summer Season in the North of Mauritius,”
IEEE The Third Advanced International Conference on
Telecommunications, (AICT’ 07), pp. 34-34, May. 2008.
[3] Mansour N.A., “RF prediction tool selection and modeling of microcells
and PCS,” Third Annual International Conference, pp. 145-149, Sep.
1994.
View publication stats
6
[4] Abhayawardhana V.S., Wassell I.J., Crosby D., Sellars M.P., Brown
M.G., “Comparison of empirical propagation path loss models for fixed
wireless access systems,” IEEE Vehicular Technology Conference,
(VTC’ 05), Vol. 1, pp. 73-77, Jun. 2005.
[5] Mansour N.A., “RF predictions and modeling for microcells and PCS
cell design,” IEEE Vehicular Technology Conference, vol. 3, pp. 1745-
1749, Jun. 1994.
[6] Kamilo Feher, (1995). Wireless Digital Communications Modulation &
Spread Spectrum Applications. USA: Prentice Hall, Inc.
[7] Javornik Tomaz, Kandus Gorazd, Hrovat Andrej, Ozimek Igor,
“Comparison of WiMAX coverage at 450MHz and 3.5GHz,” IEEE
Software in Telecommunications and Computer Networks, (SoftCOM’
06), pp. 71-75, Sep. 2006.
[8] Afric W., Virkes D., Grgic M., “Relative surface of the WiMAX cell
covered with modox of the signal,” (ELMAR’ 07), pp. 229-233, Sept.
2007.
[9] Afric W., Zovko-Cihlar B. Grgic M., “Relative surface variation as a
function of base station antenna heights at WiMAX Cell,” IEEE
Systems, Signals and Image Processing, (IWSSIP’ 08), pp. 265-270,
Jun. 2005.
[10] Sharma K., Singh K., “Comparative Analysis of Propagation Path loss
Models with Field Measured Data,” International Journal of
Engineering Science and Technology, vol. 2, pp. 2008-2010, 2010.
[11] Gordon L. Stüber, (2002). Principles of Mobile Communication. USA:
Kluwer Academic Publishers.
[12] 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.
[13] 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.
[14] Goldsmith Andrea, (2005).Wireless Communications. UK: Stanford
University.