Geometricalbased Channel Simulation Model for Ultra
Wideband Environment
Uche A.K. Okonkwo
1
, Razali Ngah
2
, Zabih Ghassemlooy
3
, and Tharek A. Rahman
4
1,2,4
Wireless Communication Center (WCC), Universiti Teknologi Malaysia, 81310 UTM Skudai, Johor
3
School of Computing, Engineering & Information Sciences, University of Northumbria, Newcastle, UK
Keywords: Ultrawideband (UWB) channel, geometrical
model, multipath, power delay profile (PDP).
Abstract
A geometricalbased method for the characterization of the
ultra wideband timeinvariant channel (UWB) is presented.
This model arises primarily from the integration of
geometrical and statistical assumptions from a physical
propagation point of view to account for clusters in the
channel response of the UWB channel. The accuracy of this
model is verified by comparison with the measured data.
1 Introduction
In order to design and analyze the ultrawideband (UWB)
system, a good knowledge of the channel properties is
necessary. A considerable amount of experimental
measurement campaign has been conducted in order to
characterize and model the UWB channel [1][3]. The IEEE
802.15.3a and 802.15.4a Task Groups also developed UWB
channel models for the simulation of the UWB system [4]. In
the simulation model the mathematical representation of the
channel response using the SalehValenzuela (SV) model [5]
is assumed:
) ( ) ( ) ( t h t x t y
UWB
∗ ·
(1)
where
) (t x
and
) (t y
are the transmitted and received
signals, respectively. The term ) (t h
UWB
is the UWB
channel response in complex baseband:
∑∑
· ·
− − ·
L
l
K
k
l k l l k l k UWB
T t j a t h
0 0
, , ,
) ( ) exp( ) ( τ δ φ
(2)
where l k
a
, is the tap weight of the kth component in the lth
cluster,
l
T is the delay of the lth cluster, l k,
τ
is the delay
of the kth multipath component (MPC) relative to the lth
cluster arrival time
l
T . Some modifications to the above
model were proposed by Chong et al [6] and Spenser et al [7].
The SV model (2) has been widely used in order to fit in
and account for the appearance of clusters in the response
pattern [5], [8]. In this paper, we combine the elliptical
geometrical model [9] and statistical assumptions to derive a
computationally efficient and tractable algorithm for the
characterization of the UWB channel. This model primarily
uses three parameters: transmitterreceiver distance, number
of scatterers and physical dimension of the environment for
the simulation.
The proposed geometricalbased model is discussed in
Section 2. And some numerical results are presented in
Section 3.
2 Proposed Channel Model
The geometricalbased elliptical model represents an ideal
model of indoor wireless propagation environment. This
model considers the geometric description of the spatial
relationship among the access point (AP), scatterers and the
user equipment (UE) within defined elliptical loops as shown
in Fig. 1.
Fig. 1: Elliptical model for UWB radio propagation channel
For APUE separation distance of D, the major and minor
axes are indicated by amax and b max, respectively).
Each scatterer is defined as a vector
n
s in a hypothetical
spacefrequency coordinate
) , , , ( ω e y x
, where
k
e is
the specific elliptical area within which the scatterers
) , ( y x s
n
with frequency characteristics ω lie. For the
UWB channel, we make the following additional assumptions
to those in [9]:
1. The propagation medium from the UE to AP with
the exception of the scattering volume has the
intrinsic electromagnetic properties of free space.
2. The scatterers may not have identical scattering
coefficients; hence the frequency dependence of the
scattering coefficients is taken into account.
From the physical propagation point of view, the single
channel can be fully characterized in the timedomain with
the knowledge of the delays and composite powers associated
with the MPCs. Let the number N and the coordinates of the
scatterers N n
y x
.., 2 , 1
) , (
· in the propagation environment
have known statistical distributions within the region bounded
by hypothetical ‘bicentric’ ellipses } {
k
e with foci at the AP
and UE. For a system bandwidth BW, the metric separation
∆
τ between two bicentric ellipses
i
e and j
e
,
} 1 .., 2 , 1 , 0 { , − · ∈ K k j i
is given by:
τ τ ∆ ·
∆
c (3)
where
) 2 /( 1 BW · ∆τ
is the time delay resolution. The
large bandwidth of UWB implies a very high resolution. All
MPCs received from scatterers within the same elliptical
separation
i
e
∆
τ have the same delay. However their power
gain may vary due to the intrinsic electromagnetic properties
of the associated scatterers which define the scattering
coefficients.
The major
a
and minor b axes halflengths of the
ellipses are given by:
τ ∆ · k c
k
. 5 . 0 a (4)
,
`
.

− ∆ ·
2 2
) . ( 5 . 0 D k c
k
τ b
(5)
where c is the speed of electromagnetic wave, τ τ ∆ · k
i
is the delay associated with the i th ellipse. The maximum
delay τ τ ∆ − · ) 1 (
max
K occurs at the boundary of the
biggest ellipse of consideration
1 − K
e . Thus all multipath
components that arrive after
max
τ are considered
insignificant. This is justifies since such signal components
will experience greater path loss and hence will have
relatively low power compared to those with shorter delays.
Therefore
max
τ should be chosen sufficiently large so that
nearly all multipath components with significant power level
will be accounted for.
The geometric distribution
) , ( y x f
of the N scatterers
can be defined using any of the appropriate known statistical
distribution functions where
) , ( y x f
is independent of
frequency. The choice of the appropriate
) , ( y x f
follows
the physical architecture and positioning/dimension of the
objects within the propagation environment. The bounds of
) , ( y x f
depends on the choice and physical dimension of
1 − K
a , and the value of
1 − K
b derived from (5) for a given
D.
To obtain the delays associated with all MPCs, we first of
all obtain the total path length by considering Fig. 2.
Fig. 2: Coordinate diagram of the scatterers, AP and UE. The
physical channel are bounded by A, B and C.
Let the reference point
) 0 , 0 (
be the receiver position
) 0 , 0 ( AP
. The path length R from
) 0 , (D UE
to
) 0 , 0 ( AP
through ) , , (
k n n n
e y x s is given by:
{ ¦
k n n k n n
g f R + · 
,
,
N n ,.., 2 , 1 ·
(6)
where:
( )
2
1
2 2
n n n
y x f + ·
(7)
( )
2 2
) (
n n n
x D y g − + · (8)
If we classify all scatterers within an area defined by ellipse
1
e as
N Q q e y x s
q q q
∈ · ) ,.., 2 , 1 ( ), , , (
1 , then the
total path length
1
H is :
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
·
qq q q
q
q
R R R
R R R
R R R
H
..
: : :
..
..
2 1
2 22 21
1 12 11
1
(9)
Thus for all the bicentric ellipses } {
k
e the composite path
length can be concatenated into a rectangular matrix W :
[ ]
1 2 1
......
−
·
K
H H H W
(10)
The matrix W has
Q
by
)) 1 ( ( − × K Q
dimension. Its
elements are either 0’s or 1’s. The sum of all the elements in
k
H represents the magnitude of the resolved MPC
associated with the ith ellipse (delay of τ ∆ . k ) if we
assume a lossless medium. Thus we can reduce the matrix
W to a 1by
) 1 ( − K
matrix
d
W .
In the case of timevarying UWB system, the required
angleofarrival (AOA) θ can be obtained from the
knowledge of the perimeter defined from UE through
n
s
to AP :
( ) ( )
2 2 2 1 1
) 2 cos
n n n n
g f D D f − + ·
− −
θ
(11)
For the
k
e the power associated with each element of
k
H is given by:
) , ( ) . ( log 10 ) ( log 20 ) , (
1
0
1
0 0
d U d d N P d P
d n n
ω ωω ω + + + ·
− −
(12)
where k n n
R d 
,
≡
, and
0
P ,
0
ω and
0
d are the
reference power, frequency and distance, respectively. The
term Nd is the path loss exponent while U is the lognormal
shadowing. Thus for scatterers defined by
) , , , (
n k n n
e y x s ω we can express the received scattered
power by:
[ ]
1 2 1
......
−
·
K T
P P P P
(13)
where
k
P is:
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
·
qq q q
q
q
k
E E E
E E E
E E E
P
..
: : :
..
..
2 1
2 22 21
1 12 11
(14)
The values of
k
P with elements ℜ ∈ E can be accurately
determined if the statistics of the material scattering objects
are available. For simulation purposes, we can employ the
empirical expression in [3]:
¹
¹
¹
'
¹
≤ + −
≤
·
−
−
m d d d
m d d d
P
k
11 , ) . log( 74 56
11 , ) . log( 4 . 20
1
0
1
0
k n n
R d 
,
≡
(15)
Hence the average powers profile associated with the
resolvable MPCs are expressed in the matrix:
T
P W × · Ω (16)
where ‘
×
’ is an elementbyelement multiplication
operator and
2
UWB
h · Ω .
3 Numerical Results and Discussions
In this section we illustrate the reliability of our method by
comparison with measured data as shown in Table 1. The
resultant measured and simulated channel responses are
shown in Fig. 3, 4 and 5. The measured channel is an office
lobby and the considered bandwidth is 500 MHz in the
frequency band 3.5 to 4.5 GHz for Channels A, B and C.
Channel A: 4 meters lineofsight (LOS) indoor channel.
Channel B: 6 meters lineofsight (LOS) indoor channel.
Channel C: 10 meters lineofsight (LOS) indoor channel.
Channel A
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
20
15
10
5
0
Delay(ns)
N
o
r
m
a
l
i
z
e
d
P
o
w
e
r
(
d
B
)
(a)MeasuredPDPat D=4m
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
Delay(ns)
N
o
r
m
a
l
i
z
e
d
a
v
e
r
a
g
e
p
o
w
e
r
(
d
B
)
(b) SimulatedPDPat D=4m
Fig. 3: (a) Simulated PDP for TxRx separation distance of 4
m and (b) measured PDP for TxRx separation distance of 4
m.
Channel B
0 10 20 30 40 50
20
15
10
5
0
Delay(ns)
N
o
r
m
a
l
i
z
e
d
P
o
w
e
r
(
d
B
)
(a) MeasuredPDPat D=6m
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
Delay(ns)
N
o
r
m
a
l
i
z
e
d
a
v
e
r
a
g
e
p
o
w
e
r
(
d
B
)
(b)SimulatedPDPatD=6m
Fig. 4: (a) Simulated PDP for TxRx separation distance of 6
m and (b) measured PDP for TxRx separation distance of 6
m.
Channel C
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
18
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
Delay(ns)
N
o
r
m
a
l
i
z
e
d
P
o
w
e
r
(
d
B
)
(a)MeasuredPDPat D=10m
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
Delay(ns)
N
o
r
m
a
l
i
z
e
d
a
v
e
r
a
g
e
p
o
w
e
r
(
d
B
)
(b)SimulatedPDPat D=10m
Fig. 5: (a) Simulated PDP for TxRx separation distance of 10
m and (b) Measured PDP for TxRx separation distance of 10
m.
Channel A D
(m)
amax
(m)
Mean no.
of
scatterers
max
τ
(ns)
rms
τ
(ns)
Simulation 4 7 35 9.75 3.504
Measurement 4   9.9 3.660
Channel B D
(m)
amax
(m)
Mean no.
of
scatterers
max
τ
(ns)
rms
τ
(ns)
Simulation 6 10 35 13.7 4.507
Measurement 6   13.5 4.701
Channel C D
(m)
amax
(m)
Mean no.
of
scatterers
max
τ
(ns)
rms
τ
(ns)
Simulation 10 18 35 24.45 8.127
Measurement 10   23.3 8.014
Table 1: Comparison between measured and simulated
models
To obtain the simulated results, the scatterers are assumed to
be uniformly distributed. This assumption and the choice of
the approximate number of scatterers arise from the
observation of the physical distributions of the various objects
in the propagation environment. Of course the use of different
statistical distributions can result in different results. Thus the
choice of appropriate distribution function must be made
carefully. In both the measured and simulated results, the
appearance of clusters can be observed. The close match
between the measured and simulated results indicates
provides the degree of confidence offered by our method.
4 Conclusion
A geometricalbased computationally tractable simulation
model for UWB channel characterization was presented. This
approach emphasizes on viewing the channel behavior from
the physical propagation point. The appearance of MPC
clusters follow naturally from the model. In a future paper we
will address the case of timevarying UWB channel using this
model. In that case the summation of MPCs that fall within
the same bin has to be carried out with consideration to the
different Doppler shifts experienced by each MPC.
Acknowledgements
The authors thank the Ministry of Higher Education
(MOHE), Malaysia for providing financial support and
wonderful hospitality through the course of this work. The
Grant (78368) is managed by Research Management Center
(RMC), Universiti Teknologi Malaysia (UTM).
References
[1] P. Pagani, and P. Pajusco, “Statistical modeling of the
ultra wide band propagation channel through the analysis
of experimental measurements” Comptes Rendus 
Physique, vol. 7, no. 7, pp. 762773, (2006).
[2] S. S. Ghassemzadeh, R. Jana, C. W. Rice, W. Turin, and
V. Tarokh, “Measurement and modeling of ultrawide
bandwidth indoor channel” IEEE Trans. Commun. vol.
52, no. 10, pp. 17861796, (1993).
[3] D. Cassioli, M. Z. Win, and A. F. Molisch, “The ultra
wide bandwidth indoor channel: From statistical model to
simulations” IEEE J. Sel. Areas Commun., vol. 20, no. 6,
pp. 12471257, (2002).
[4] A. F. Molisch, K. Balakrishnan, C. C. Chong, et al.,
“IEEE 802. 15.4a channel model – final report,” in
Technical. Report IEEE 802.15 working group for
WPANs, IEEE P802.1504/0662, (2005).
[5] A. Saleh, Molisch A. F. “Ultrawideband propagation
channels”, Invited paper, Proceedings of the IEEE
vol. 97, no. 2, Feb., pp. 353371, (2009).
[6] C. Chong, Y. Kim, and S. S. Lee, “A modified SV
clustering channel model for the UWB indoor residential
environment,” in Proc. IEEE Vehicular Techn. Conf.,
Stockholm, Sweden, May, pp. 5862, (2005).
[7] Q. H. Spenser, B. D. Jeffs, M. A. Jenson, and A. L.
Swindlehurst, “Modeling the statistical time and angle of
arrival characteristics of an indoor multipath channel,”
IEEE J. Sel. Areas Commun., vol. 18, pp. 347359,
(2000).
[8] A.F. Molisch, K. Balakrishnan, D. Cassioli, et al, “A
comprehensive model for ultrawideband propagation
channels,” IEEE Global Telecomm Conf, GLOBECOM
'05, Missouri USA, Dec, vol. 6, pp.36483653, (2005).
[9] Aguilar J. G, Fregoso C. J, Cortez J. D, Martínez A, and
Andrade A. G “Multipath characterization of micro and
macrocellular environments for mobile radio systems”
Proc. Elect, Robotics and Automotive Mechanics Conf.
CERMA’09, Mexico. Sept. 2225. pp. 2732, (2009).
Its elements are either 0’s or 1’s. 2: Coordinate diagram of the scatterers. However their power
gain may vary due to the intrinsic electromagnetic properties of the associated scatterers which define the scattering coefficients. The choice of the appropriate f ( x.2..k ∆ ) 2 −D 2 τ
(4)
(5) where
fn =
gn
c
is the speed of electromagnetic wave.. the single channel can be fully characterized in the timedomain with the knowledge of the delays and composite powers associated with the MPCs.(Q ×( K −1)) dimension. N in the propagation environment 1 have known statistical distributions within the region bounded by hypothetical ‘bicentric’ ellipses {e k } with foci at the AP and UE.. R 22 . The bounds of f ( x.. The physical channel are bounded by A.
To obtain the delays associated with all MPCs. The geometric distribution f ( x. The scatterers may not have identical scattering coefficients. The maximum If we classify all scatterers within an area defined by ellipse
delay τ max = ( K −1) ∆τ occurs at the boundary of the biggest ellipse of consideration e K − . 2. All MPCs received from scatterers within the same elliptical
separation
e τ ∆i
have the same delay. y ) is independent of frequency... Q ) ∈N .. The path length R from U (D. AP and UE. the metric separation τ ∆ between two bicentric ellipses ei and e j .1. τ i = k ∆τ
( =(
2 xn 2 yn
+
1 2 2 yn
)
(7)
+ ( D − xn ) 2
)
(8)
is the delay associated with the
i th ellipse. Thus all multipath 1 components that arrive after τm are considered ax insignificant.
i.2. The major a and minor b axes halflengths of the ellipses are given by:
R n . The sum of all the elements in H k represents the magnitude of the resolved MPC
. N
(6) where:
a k = 0. : R q 2 . and the value of b K −1 derived from (5) for a given 1
(10) The matrix W has Q by. e k ) is given by: P
τ where ∆ =1 /( 2 BW ) is the time delay resolution. then the total path length H 1 is :
R11 R 21 H1 = : R q1
R12 . we first of all obtain the total path length by considering Fig.
H K −1 ]
a K − .. (q =1.2.. This is justifies since such signal components will experience greater path loss and hence will have relatively low power compared to those with shorter delays.0) through s n ( x n .5 (c. Let the reference point (0. y ) n = .. y ) of the N scatterers can be defined using any of the appropriate known statistical distribution functions where f ( x. B and C.0) to P E A (0.. e1 ).. y ) follows the physical architecture and positioning/dimension of the objects within the propagation environment. n =1. 2. Let the number N and the coordinates of the scatterers ( x. The large bandwidth of UWB implies a very high resolution..5 c.0) be the receiver position A (0.0) .k ∆τ
b k =0.
τ ∆ = c∆τ
(3) Fig.intrinsic electromagnetic properties of free space. From the physical propagation point of view. Therefore τ max should be chosen sufficiently large so that nearly all multipath components with significant power level will be accounted for.
R1q R 2q : R qq
(9)
Thus for all the bicentric ellipses {e k } the composite path length can be concatenated into a rectangular matrix W :
W = [ H1
H 2 . For a system bandwidth BW.. y n . hence the frequency dependence of the scattering coefficients is taken into account... y q . 2..n  k = { f n + g n } k . K −1} is given by: {
D. y ) depends on the choice and physical dimension of
e1 as s q ( x q .. j ∈ k = 0.
d ≤ 11m Pk = − − 56 + 74 log( d . 3: (a) Simulated PDP for TxRx separation distance of 4 m and (b) measured PDP for TxRx separation distance of 4 m. The resultant measured and simulated channel responses are shown in Fig. 2
0 0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
1 0
The values of Pk with elements E ∈ℜ can be accurately determined if the statistics of the material scattering objects are available.5 to 4. : E q 2 .d 0 1 ) ... (12) where d ≡ R n. In the case of timevarying UWB system. 3.5 GHz for Channels A. Thus we can reduce the matrix W to a 1by. − − P ( d n .d 0 1 ) Channel B: 6 meters lineofsight (LOS) indoor channel. The measured channel is an office lobby and the considered bandwidth is 500 MHz in the frequency band 3. y n . and P0 ..( K −1) matrix Wd . The term Nd is the path loss exponent while U is the lognormal shadowing. e k .. ωn ) we can express the received scattered power by:
Channel A
( )M sr d D aD 4 a e u PPt = m a e
0
N rm o aliz P w r (dB ed o e )
5
PT = [ P1
(13) where Pk is:
P2 . Channel B
0 Normalized Power (dB) (a) M easured PD at D = 6 m P
d ≡ R n.
(11) For the e k the power associated with each element of
H k is given by:
Channel A: 4 meters lineofsight (LOS) indoor channel. Thus for scatterers defined by s ( x n ..
E1q E 2q : E qq
0 . +U (ω. 4 and 5.d 0 ) .
AP : θ n = cos −1 ( 2 f n D ) −1 D 2 + f n2 − g n ) 2
(
)
3 Numerical Results and Discussions
In this section we illustrate the reliability of our method by comparison with measured data as shown in Table 1. frequency and distance. n  k
5
(15) Hence the average powers profile associated with the resolvable MPCs are expressed in the matrix:
10
15
20
0
10
20
Ω = W ×PT
(16)
D elay (ns)
30
40
50
. n  k . respectively. 8
(14)
0 . For simulation purposes. 6
0 .∆ ) if we τ assume a lossless medium. d ≤ 11m
Da ( s e yn) l
Fig.associated with the ith ellipse (delay of k . the required angleofarrival (AOA) θ can be obtained from the knowledge of the perimeter defined from UE through s n to
where ‘
×
’ is an elementbyelement multiplication
2
operator and Ω= hUWB
. 4
0 . ωn ) = P0 + 20 log (ωω0 1 ) +10 N d log ( d . d ) Channel C: 10 meters lineofsight (LOS) indoor channel..4 log( d .
PK −1 ]
0 1
5 1
0 2
0
5
1 0
1 5
2 0
2 5
3 0
3 5
4 0
4 5
5 0
Da ( s e yn) l
N orm lize a ra p e (dB a d ve ge ow r )
( )S u t d D aD 4 b i l e PPt = m m a
1
E11 E 21 Pk = : E q1
E12 . B and C. we can employ the empirical expression in [3]:
−1 20 . ω and d 0 are the 0 reference power... E 22 .
15.
D yn e (s l ) a
N rm liz d a e g p w r(d ) o a e v ra e o e B
()Sut dDa =0 b i l eP tD1m m a P
1
0 . Universiti Teknologi Malaysia (UTM). Balakrishnan. 2
0 0
5
1 0
1 5
2 0
2 5
3 0
Dyn e (s l ) a
Fig. The Grant (78368) is managed by Research Management Center (RMC).. no. W. The close match between the measured and simulated results indicates provides the degree of confidence offered by our method. Jana. Commun. 10. pp.
0 . 7. pp. Win. Turin.15 working group for WPANs. R. “Measurement and modeling of ultrawide bandwidth indoor channel” IEEE Trans. 12471257. Thus the choice of appropriate distribution function must be made carefully. C. F. IEEE P802. [3] D. vol. and V.” in Technical.507 4. 762773. Pagani. In a future paper we will address the case of timevarying UWB channel using this model. Chong. In both the measured and simulated results.
References
[1] P. 6.660
τ max
(ns) 13. Malaysia for providing financial support and wonderful hospitality through the course of this work.3
8. (2002). of scatterers 35 Mean no. W. (2005). F. S. Of course the use of different statistical distributions can result in different results. Pajusco. and A. (2006). 4 0 . pp. 17861796.127 8. This assumption and the choice of the approximate number of scatterers arise from the observation of the physical distributions of the various objects in the propagation environment. C. C. In that case the summation of MPCs that fall within the same bin has to be carried out with consideration to the different Doppler shifts experienced by each MPC. [2] S.9
τrms
(ns) 3. M. K.4a channel model – final report. (1993). 5: (a) Simulated PDP for TxRx separation distance of 10 m and (b) Measured PDP for TxRx separation distance of 10 m.
2
4
6 Da ( s e yn) l
8
1 0
1 2
1 4
Fig. Molisch. [4] A. 4: (a) Simulated PDP for TxRx separation distance of 6 m and (b) measured PDP for TxRx separation distance of 6 m.1504/0662. Cassioli.
Channel C
N orm alized P w (dB o er )
0 2 4 6 8 0 1 2 1 4 1 6 1 8 1 0 1 0 2 0 3 0 4 0 5 0 6 0 7 0 8 0 9 0
( )Msr d DaD 1 m a e u PPt =0 a e
4 Conclusion
A geometricalbased computationally tractable simulation model for UWB channel characterization was presented. Rice. 8 0 . vol. 7. no. Report IEEE 802. 8
0 . the appearance of clusters can be observed. 4
0 .5
τ rms
(ns) 4.504 3. “Statistical modeling of the ultra wide band propagation channel through the analysis of experimental measurements” Comptes Rendus Physique. vol.701
τ max
(ns)
τ rms
(ns)
. 6 0 . The appearance of MPC clusters follow naturally from the model. 6
Acknowledgements
The authors thank the Ministry of Higher Education (MOHE).. Ghassemzadeh. “IEEE 802. Z.45 23. the scatterers are assumed to be uniformly distributed. Sel. 20. no. Areas Commun. This approach emphasizes on viewing the channel behavior from the physical propagation point. and P. 2 0 0
Simulation Measurement
10 10
18 
35 
24. of scatterers 35 Mean no. Molisch. of scatterers
τ max
(ns) 9.75 9.7 13. Tarokh.N orm alized average pow er(dB )
( )S u t d DaD 6 b i l e P Pt = m ma 1 0 . et al.
Channel A Simulation Measurement Channel B Simulation Measurement Channel C
D (m) 4 4 D (m) 6 6 D (m)
amax (m) 7 amax (m) 10 amax (m)
Mean no. 52. “The ultrawide bandwidth indoor channel: From statistical model to simulations” IEEE J.014
Table 1: Comparison between measured and simulated models To obtain the simulated results.
. May. L. 97.. “A comprehensive model for ultrawideband propagation channels. 2732.” IEEE J. pp. Invited paper. vol. Molisch. (2005). H. Kim. IEEE Vehicular Techn. vol. Stockholm. Mexico. Conf. [8] A. no. K. pp. D. pp. Spenser.” in Proc. Proceedings of the IEEE vol. J. [7] Q. Sweden. D. CERMA’09. B. D. “A modified SV clustering channel model for the UWB indoor residential environment. pp. pp.. A. Elect. Feb. 5862.36483653. Swindlehurst. (2000). Cassioli. (2009). M. 18. Sept. Robotics and Automotive Mechanics Conf. Balakrishnan. et al. Molisch A. Areas Commun. G “Multipath characterization of micro and macrocellular environments for mobile radio systems” Proc. Jenson. Cortez J. “Ultrawideband propagation channels”. (2009). Sel. Saleh. “Modeling the statistical time and angle of arrival characteristics of an indoor multipath channel. 2225. Martínez A. F. S.F. Y. [9] Aguilar J. Fregoso C. Missouri USA. 347359. [6] C. 353371. and Andrade A. Chong. and A. (2005). Lee.[5] A. 6.. and S. GLOBECOM '05. Jeffs. Dec. 2. G.” IEEE Global Telecomm Conf.