energies
Article
Performance Analysis of a Millimeter Wave Communication
System in Urban Micro, Urban Macro, and Rural
Macro Environments
Chilakala Sudhamani 1 , Mardeni Roslee 1, *, Lee Loo Chuan 1 , Athar Waseem 2 , Anwar Faizd Osman 3
and Mohamad Huzaimy Jusoh 4
Citation: Sudhamani, C.; Roslee, M.;
Chuan, L.L.; Waseem, A.; Osman,
A.F.; Jusoh, M.H. Performance
Analysis of a Millimeter Wave
Communication System in Urban
Micro, Urban Macro, and Rural
Macro Environments. Energies 2023,
16, 5358. https://doi.org/10.3390/
en16145358
Academic Editor: Brian D. Fath
Received: 1 June 2023
Revised: 20 June 2023
Accepted: 27 June 2023
Published: 14 July 2023
Copyright: © 2023 by the authors.
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
This article is an open access article
distributed under the terms and
conditions of the Creative Commons
Attribution (CC BY) license (https://
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/
4.0/).
Energies 2023, 16, 5358. https://doi.org/10.3390/en16145358
1 Centre for Wireless Technology, Faculty of Engineering, Multimedia University,
Cyberjaya 63100, Selangor, Malaysia; sudhamanich@gmail.com (C.S.); loochuan@hotmail.com (L.L.C.)
2 Department of Electrical Engineering, International Islamic University, Islamabad 44000, Pakistan;
athar.waseem@iiu.edu.pk
3 Rohde & Schwarz (M) SdnBhd, Shah Alam 40150, Selangor, Malaysia;
anwarfaizd.osman@rohde-schwarz.com
4 Faculty of Electrical Engineering, Universiti Teknologi MARA, Shah Alam 40450, Selangor, Malaysia;
huzaimy@uitm.edu.my
* Correspondence: mardeni.roslee@mmu.edu.my
Abstract: The signal power in wireless communication systems is influenced by various factors,
including the environment. These factors include path differences, operational frequency, and
environmental conditions. Consequently, designing a communication system that generates a stronger
signal is highly challenging. To address this, large-scale path-loss models are employed to estimate
the path loss and signal power across different frequencies, distances, and environments. In this
paper, we focused on the urban micro, urban macro, and rural macro environments to estimate path
loss and signal power at millimeter wave frequencies. We compared the path loss and received power
among different path-loss models developed by standard organizations. Simulation results indicate
that the fifth-generation channel model provides enhanced path loss and signal power in urban micro
environments, while the third-generation partnership project model performs well in urban macro
and rural macro environments when compared to other path-loss models.
Keywords: 5G networks; millimeter wave; path-loss models; rural environment; urban environment
1. Introduction
The wireless communication field is one of the most successful and rapidly expanding
industries due to the rising demand for mobile devices, which is followed by network
expansion. By the end of 2025, it is estimated that 20 billion devices will be connected
to the mobile network, increasing the amount of wireless data traffic [1,2]. Wireless data
transfer has also increased as a result of the development of the Internet of Things (IoT),
which includes applications for smart cities, smart health care, smart forming, climate
monitoring, intelligent transportation, etc. These applications require very high data rates
and large bandwidths to design stable and reliable wireless networks [3–5]. Therefore,
the fifth-generation (5G) wireless networks with millimeter wave (mmWave) frequency
(3 GHz–300 GHz) is considered to meet these demands. The mmWave spectrum provides a
huge number of underutilized spectrum bands, which will provide high data rates for the
expansion of 5G wireless networks. The underused spectrum bands of mmWave offer a
great opportunity to extend the coverage capacity and improve the quality of service [6–8].
Several studies found that mmWave frequencies have implementation problems, es-
pecially with relation to the path loss (PL) and received power (RP) imposed by various
parameters such as weather and atmospheric conditions and obstacles in the surround-
ings [9]. Along with this, the propagating signal is affected by antenna height, location,
https://www.mdpi.com/journal/energies
Energies 2023, 16, 5358 2 of 18

and type of antenna [10–13]. Received signal power in a wireless communication sys-
tem depends on the interference between the signals, spectrum allocation, spectrum effi-
ciency, etc. [14,15]. Therefore, an accurate estimation of signal power and propagation loss
is required to design a modern 5G wireless communication system. Analysis of path-loss
models at mmWave frequencies is of the highest priority in order to determine the ideal
location of 5G base stations (BS). Many researchers and engineers have developed various
mmWave propagation models, which include (i) the 5G channel model (5GCM), the 3rd
Generation Partnership Project (3GPP), mobile and wireless communication enablers for
the twenty-twenty information society (METIS), and millimeter wave-based mobile radio
access networks or 5G integrated communication (mmMAGIC) [16–19].
In this paper, the effectiveness of different existing propagation models such as 5GCM,
3GPP, METIS, and mmMAGIC at mmWave frequencies between 1 and 100 GHz are consid-
ered and compared. The urban micro (UMi), urban macro (UMa), and rural macro (RMa)
environments were taken into consideration for line-of-sight (LOS) and non-line-of-sight
(NLOS) situations. Because the urban microcellular network provides low latency, high
capacity, improved coverage, and improved network reliability, urban and rural macrocel-
lular networks provide extended coverage, improved energy efficiency, and cost effective
deployments. Out of these three cellular networks, specific deployment strategies can be
selected based on factors such as population density, geographic characteristics, and in-
frastructure availability. The main goals of this paper are to determine the path loss and
received power in urban and rural environments, as well as to estimate the PL and RP
at different mmWave frequencies using the various path-loss models that are currently
available. An optimized path-loss model can be selected based on the estimated path
loss and received power in a given environment. The selected optimized model can be
used by the service providers to enhance their network capacity and coverage and energy
efficiency. The remainder of the paper is structured as follows: Section 2 explains related
work, Section 3 discusses path-loss models, Section 4 contains the results and discussions,
and Section 5 contains the conclusion.

2. Related Work
The alpha-beta-gamma (ABG) model, the floating intercept (FI) model, and the close-
in-free space with distance (CI) model were the three basic path-loss models [20,21]. These
models were established using conventional statistical methods or data-dependent machine
learning methods. In Ref. [22], machine learning techniques were used to estimate the PL
and compare their performance using a random forest, a support vector regression model,
and artificial neural networks. The performance of mobile communication systems was
calculated and compared using the traditional channel model and the deep learning model
at 2.6 GHz [23]. Estimates of propagation loss were made for urban and suburban NLOS
scenarios across several frequencies, ranging from 0.8 GHz to 70 GHz [24]. The propagation
loss, received power, and PL exponent were estimated for mmWave frequencies using
NYUSIM [25]. In an urban LOS scenario at 28 GHz, the PL, PL exponent, and standard
deviation were estimated using NYUSIM, which also determined the best direction for
signal propagation [26].
Single-frequency CI and FI models and multi-frequency ABG and CIF models were
used to evaluate the propagation characteristics of two indoor stairwell environments [27].
The measured results could be utilized for designing an effective indoor communication
system and a small-cell wireless network. In Ref. [28], a comparison and analysis of
various path-loss models were presented. A PL measurement campaign was conducted in
New York City and Austin at 28 GHz and 38 GHz in a UMi environment [29]. From the
measurement, it was identified that the shadow factor reduced the PL by 1 dB in New York
City and 6 dB in Austin. The improved versions of the CI and FI PL models were considered
to measure the mean prediction and standard deviation error for vertical-horizontal and
vertical-vertical antenna polarization [21]. The results confirmed that the new versions of
the CI and FI models provided better PL compared to the conventional models.
Energies 2023, 16, 5358
Author & Ref. No.
Oladimeji, T.T. et al. [21]
Zhang, Y. et al. [22]
Thrane, J. et al. [23]
3 of 18
In Ref. [30], the authors compared empirical path-loss models with practical mea-
surements observed at a frequency of 3.5 GHz in Cambridge, UK. They identified that
the ECC-33 models produced optimized path loss compared to the Hata and SUI models.
In Ref. [31], the authors estimated the path loss using the Hata model and compared it with
outdoor measurements. From the comparison, the authors identified the best-optimized
path-loss model that yielded the lowest relative error. In Ref. [32], three path-loss models
were used to predict the path loss and were compared with the measured data. The authors
determined that the Hata model was the best model for path loss prediction in the urban
environment. In Ref. [33], the authors conducted measurements of the LOS path loss at
frequencies of 3.35 GHz, 8.45 GHz, and 15.75 GHz using the break point distance. Based on
the break point distance, they proposed two path loss formulas, one for the lower bound
and another for the upper bound of LOS paths in urban micro environments.
In mmWave communication systems, beam management was the major problem due
to dense network deployment and directional transmission. Many authors addressed
beam management algorithms in the literature to enhance the wireless communication
system performance. In Ref. [34], an adaptive beam management algorithm was proposed
to enhance privacy protection and to reduce resource conservation. In Ref. [35], hybrid
beam-forming scheme was proposed. In this method mmWave spectrum was shared
between the multi-beam satellite system and cellular system and maximized the secrecy
energy efficiency of the proposed system. In Ref. [36], an optimization scheme was used
to maximize the secrecy energy efficiency. The proposed method will enhance security
transmission and reduce power consumption. In Ref. [37], the authors proposed a joint
beam-forming scheme and optimization scheme for hybrid satellite relay networks to
minimize the total transmit power and to enhance the secrecy energy efficiency. A summary
of related works is shown in Table 1.
Table 1. Summary of Related Works.
Frequency Environment Observations Future Scope
An experimental setup was used
Path loss was estimated
to estimate the mean prediction
for a small indoor region,
Indoor error and standard deviation
24 GHz & 38 GHz and the authors want to
Environment error. These two errors were
extend it for an
used to identify the efficiency of
outdoor scenario.
improved path-loss models.
Collection of training
data, incremental
learning, and
hyper-parameter
2.02 GHz & Estimated the path loss using
Urban Scenario optimization are the
5.8 GHz machine learning models.
major problems in path
loss estimation
using machine
learning techniques.
Path loss was estimated and
compared using traditional
Prediction of path loss
channel models and deep
using deep learning
Urban Macro learning channel models, and it
2.6 GHz models is more complex
Scenario was observed that the deep
compared to the
learning models provided better
traditional model.
path loss compared to the
traditional models.
Energies 2023, 16, 5358 4 of 18

Table 1. Cont.

Author & Ref. No. Frequency Environment Observations Future Scope

The authors estimated the path
loss at mmWave frequencies
Random search approach
Urban and using a feed-forward deep
0.8 GHz to was considered for
Nguyen, C. et al. [24] Suburban neural network model.
70 GHz tuning the
environments The proposed model enhanced
hyper-parameters.
the mean square error and
prediction accuracy.
MIMO uniform antenna arrays Path loss for different
UMi, UMa, are used to estimate the angle of transmitter and receiver
Hasan, R. et al. [25] mmWave Bands and RMi arrival, angle of departure, distances needs to be
environments and power delay profiles at calculated for mmWave
mmWave frequency bands. frequency bands.
Directional and unidirectional
antennas are considered in the
UMi, UMa, The authors wanted to
urban microcell region, and the
Lodro, M.M. et al. [26] 28 GHz and RMa extend it for large-scale
angle of arrival, angle of
environments path-loss models.
departure, and power delay
profiles are estimated.
Path loss, path loss exponent,
and standard deviations were Path loss estimation for
Aldhaibani, 26 GHz, 28 GHz, Indoor Stairwell
estimated for the considered multi-stair buildings is in
A.O. et al. [27] 32 GHz & 38 GHz Environment
stairwell environments in the the future’s scope.
indoor region.
The authors estimated path loss
in LOS and NLOS scenarios by
Urban Need to implement it for
MacCartney, considering steerable
28 GHz & 38 GHz microcellular the mmWave and THz
G.R. et al. [29] transmitting and receiving
environment frequency bands.
antennas in the
outdoor environment.
Existing Hata model was
Path loss estimation and
considered to optimize the path
400 MHz to suburban comparison using
Roslee, M.B. et al. [31] loss. System performance is
1800 MHz environment different path-loss
estimated using the
models is needed.
relative error.
Path loss was estimated and
compared using the free space,
Urban Need to implement it for
150 MHz to Hata and Egli path-loss models.
Obot, A. et al. [32] macrocellular the mmWave and THz
1500 MHz The authors observed that the
environment frequency bands.
Hata model is the best path-loss
model out of three models.
In this paper, we estimated and
Urban
compared path loss using the Wanted to extend the
Microcell,
mmWave existing standard path-loss same in the THz
This paper Urban
Frequency band models in the mmWave frequency region in
Macrocell, and
frequency bands of all the future.
Rural Macrocell
possible environments.

3. Path Loss Models

For accurate design and comparison of wireless networks and for their deployment,
wireless channel models are necessary, which will simulate signal propagation accurately
and efficiently. In this paper, we considered the existing four path-loss models that are
introduced by the four major organizations: (i) 5G channel model (5GCM) [16], (ii) the
3rd Generation Partnership Project (3GPP) [17], (iii) mobile and wireless communication
enablers for the twenty-twenty information society (METIS) [18], and (iv) millimeter wave-
Energies 2023, 16, 5358 5 of 18

based mobile radio access networks or 5G integrated communication (mmMAGIC) [19].

The PL in these models depends on the range between transmitter and receiver (T-R),
carrier frequency, and environmental conditions. UMi, UMa, and RMa environments under
LOS and NLOS scenarios are considered to estimate the PL and RP.

3.1. UMi Path Loss Models

The UMi path-loss model, PL expression, and parameters range, like shadow fading,
carrier frequency, distance, and antenna heights, are listed in Table 2. In the UMi envi-
ronment, the propagation path is divided into two types: street canyon (SC) and open
square (OS).

Table 2. UMi Path Loss Models.

Shadow
Model PL [dB] Parameters
Fading [dB]
5GCM SC LOS PL = 32.4 + 21log10 ( R3D ) + 20log10 ( f ) σ = 3.76 6 GHz < f < 100 GHz
5GCM SC NLOS CI Model : PL = 32.4 + 31.7log10 ( R3D ) + 20log10 ( f ) σ = 8.09 6 GHz < f < 100 GHz
ABG Model : PL = 22.4 + 35.3log10 ( R3D ) + 21.3log10 ( f ) σ = 7.82
5GCM OS LOS PL = 32.4 + 18.5log10 ( R3D ) + 20log10 ( f ) σ = 4.2 6 GHz < f < 100 GHz
5GCM OS NLOS CI Model : PL = 32.4 + 28.9log10 ( R3D ) + 20log10 ( f ) σ = 7.1 6 GHz < f < 100 GHz
ABG Model : PL = 3.66 + 41.4log10 ( R3D ) + 24.3log10 ( f ) σ = 7.0
0.5 GHz < f < 100 GHz,
(
3GPP SC LOS PL1 , 10 m ≤ R ≤ d BP σ = 4.0
PL − LOS = 1.5 m ≤ h2 ≤ 22.5 m
PL2 , d BP ≤ R ≤ 5 km
PL1 = 32.4 + 21log10 ( R3D + 20log10 ( f ) h1 = 10 m
PL2 = 32.4 + 40log10 ( R3D + 20log10 ( f ) − 9.5log10 ((d BP )2
+(h1 − h2 )2 )
where d BP is a break point distance, which is given by
Equation (1).
3GPP SC NLOS PL = max ( PL − LOS, PL − NLOS) σ = 7.82 0.5 GHz < f < 100 GHz
10 m < R < 5000 m,
PL − NLOS = 22.4 + 35.3log10 ( R3D ) + 21.3log10 ( f )
1.5 m ≤ h2 ≤ 22.5 m,
−0.3(h2 − 1.5)
h1 = 10 m
0.8 GHz < f < 60 GHz,
(
METIS SC LOS PL1 , 10 m ≤ R ≤ d BP1 σ = 3.1
PL − LOS = 1.5 m ≤ h2 ≤ 22.5 m
PL2 , d BP1 ≤ R ≤ 500 m
PL1 = 28.0 + 22log10 ( R3D + 20log10 ( f ) + PL0 h1 = 10 m
PL2 = 7.8 + 40log10 ( R3D + 2log10 ( f ) − 18log10 (h1 h2 )
+ PL1 (d BP )
where d BP1 and PL0 are given by Equations (2) and (3)
METIS SC NLOS PL = max ( PL − LOS, PL − NLOS) σ = 4.0 0.45 GHz ≤ f ≤ 6 GHz
10 m < R < 2000 m,
PL − NLOS = 23.15 + 36.7log10 ( R3D ) + 26log10 ( f )
1.5 m ≤ h2 ≤ 22.5 m,
−0.3(h2 )
h1 = 10 m
mmMAGIC SC LOS PL = 32.9 + 19.2log10 ( R3D ) + 20.8log10 ( f ) σ = 2.0 6 GHz < f < 100 GHz
mmMAGICSC NLOS PL = 31.0 + 45log10 ( R3D ) + 20log10 ( f ) σ = 7.82 6 GHz < f < 100 GHz
Note: R, R3D , h1 and h2 are in meters, frequency (f) is in GHz and path loss (PL) is in dB.

3.1.1. 5GCM Model

The large-scale CI with reference distance and ABG models are considered to estimate
the PL and RP in LOS and NLOS scenarios. In 5GCM, urban micro-street canyon (UMi-SC)
and urban micro-open square (UMi-OS) environments are considered, and PL and RP for
these models under LOS and NLOS scenarios are estimated at a frequency range of 6 GHz
to 100 GHz. The PL equations of the 5GCM model are shown in Table 1.
Energies 2023, 16, 5358 6 of 18

3.1.2. 3GPP Model

In this model, the distance ( R3D ) between transmitter
p and receiver (T-R) is estimated
based on antenna heights and R, which is given by ( R)2 + (h1 − h2 )2 [19]. Where R
is the actual distance between T and R, h1 and h2 are the actual BS and user equipment
antenna heights, respectively. In a 3GPP LOS scenario, PL is estimated based on break point
distance (d BP ), i.e., if R < d BP then PL1 otherwise, PL2 is used to estimate the PL using the
large-scale CI model [38–40]. Break point distance is estimated as [41]

d BP = 4h11 h21 f × 109 /c (1)

h11 = h1 − 1.0 m
h21 = h2 − 1.0 m

where h11 and h21 are effective antenna heights and c is the velocity of free space 3 ×108 m/s.
Large scale ABG model is used to estimate the PL of UMi-NLOS scenario [19].

3.1.3. METIS Model

LOS PL of METIS model depends on break point distance (d BP1 ) and path loss offset
(PL0 ). d BP1 and PL0 are given by [18]

−log10 ( f ) 4(h11 )(h21 ) f × 109

 
d BP = 0.87exp × (2)
0.65 c

PL0 [dB] = −1.38log10 ( f ) + 3.34 (3)

The large-scale ABG model is used to estimate the PL in UMI-NLOS scenario.

3.1.4. mmMAGIC Model

This model uses large-scale ABG model to estimate the PL in UMi-LOS and UMi-
NLOS scenarios.

3.2. UMa Path Loss Models

The large-scale PL of an urban macro environment is measured using 5GCM, 3GPP,
and METIS models. The PL model, PL expression, standard deviation, and various param-
eters like carrier frequency, distance, and antenna heights are listed in Table 3.

3.2.1. 5GCM Model

CI and ABG large-scale path-loss models are used to measure the PL in an urban
macro environment [14,36,42]. In a UMa environment, the BS antenna height is 25 m, which
is higher than the UMi case. This will help reduce the PL by avoiding obstructions below
25 m height from the ground surface [19].

3.2.2. 3GPP Model

The LOS UMa PL is measured based on the break point distance and the ABG large-
scale path-loss model. Similarly, UMa NLOS PL is measured using the ABG model for a
standard deviation of 7.8 dB [17].

3.2.3. METIS Model

In this model, LOS and NLOS PL is measured using the large-scale ABG model [18].

3.3. RMa Path Loss Models

The PL in a rural macro environment is measured using ITU-RM.2135/3GPP TR
38.901 [43,44]. The PL and its parameters are listed in Table 4.
Energies 2023, 16, 5358 7 of 18

Table 3. UMa Path Loss Models.

Shadow
Model PL [dB] Parameters
Fading [dB]
5GCM LOS PL = 32.4 + 20log10 ( R3D ) + 20log10 ( f ) σ = 4.1 6 GHz < f < 100 GHz
5GCM NLOS CI Model : PL = 32.4 + 30log10 ( R3D ) + 20log10 ( f ) σ = 6.8 6 GHz < f < 100 GHz
ABG Model : PL = 19.2 + 34log10 ( R3D ) + 23log10 ( f ) σ = 6.5
0.5 GHz < f < 100 GHz,
(
3GPP LOS PL1 , 10 m ≤ R ≤ d BP σ = 6.0
PL − LOS = 1.5 m ≤ h2 ≤ 22.5 m
PL2 , d BP ≤ R ≤ 5 km
PL1 = 28 + 22log10 ( R3D + 20log10 ( f ) h1 = 25 m
PL2 = 28 + 40log10 ( R3D + 20log10 ( f ) − 9log10 ((d BP )2 + (h1 − h2 )2 )
where d BP is a break point distance, which is given by Equation (1).
3GPP NLOS PL = max ( PL − LOS, PL − NLOS) σ=6 0.5 GHz < f < 100 GHz
10 m < R < 5000 m,
PL − NLOS = 13.54 + 39.08log10 ( R3D ) + 20log10 ( f ) − 0.6(h2 − 1.5) 1.5 m ≤ h2 ≤ 22.5 m,
h1 = 25 m
0.45 GHz < f < 6 GHz,
(
METIS LOS PL1 , 10 m ≤ R ≤ d BP1 σ=4
PL − LOS = 1.5 m ≤ h2 ≤ 22.5 m
PL2 , d BP1 ≤ R ≤ 5 km
PL1 = 28 + 22log10 ( R3D + 20log10 ( f ) h1 = 25 m
PL2 = 28 + 40log10 ( R3D + 20log10 ( f ) − 9log10 ((d BP )2 + (h1 − h2 )2 )
where d BP1 is given by Equation (1)
METIS NLOS PL = max ( PL − LOS, PL − NLOS) σ = 6.0 0.45 GHz ≤ f ≤ 6 GHz
PL − NLOS = 161.94 + (43.42 − 3.1log10 (h1 ))(log10 ( R3D ) − 3) 10 m < R < 2000 m,
1.5 m ≤ h2 ≤ 22.5 m,
 10 ( f ) − 0.6(h2
+20log ) − 7.1log10 (w) + 7.5log10 (h)
h1 = 25 m, w = 20 m,
2
− 24.37 − 3.7 hh1 log10 (h1 ) h = 20 m

Table 4. RMa Path Loss Models.

Shadow
Model PL [dB] Parameters
Fading [dB]
0.5 GHz < f < 100 GHz,
(
3GPP LOS PL1 , 10 m ≤ R ≤ d BP2
PL − LOS = 1 m ≤ h2 ≤ 10 m
PL2 , d BP2 ≤ R ≤ 10 km
PL1 = 20log10 (40πR3D f /3) + min(0.03h1.72 , 10)log10 ( R3D ) −
σ = 4.0 h1 = 35 m, h = 5 m
min(0.044h1.72 , 14.77) + 0.002log10 (h) R3D
PL2 = PL1 (d BP2 ) + 40log10 ( R3D /d BP2 ) σ=8
where d BP2 is a break point distance, which is given by Equation (4).
3GPP NLOS PL = max ( PL − LOS, PL − NLOS) σ=8 0.5 GHz < f < 100 GHz
PL − NLOS = 161.94 + (43.42 − 3.1log10 (h1 ))(log10 ( R3D ) − 3) + 10 m < R < 5000 m,
3.2(log10 (11.75h2 ))2 − 4.97) − 7.1log10 (w) +
20log10 ( f ) − ( 1 m ≤ h2 ≤ 10 m,
 2 h1 = 35 m, w = 20 m,
7.5log10 (h) − 24.37 − 3.7 hh1 log10 (h1 ) h = 5m

3GPP Model
The large-scale CI model is used to measure the LOS RMa path loss [43,44]. LOS path
loss is estimated based on the break point distance and it is given by

d BP2 = 2πh1 h2 f /c (4)

The received signal power in UMi, UMa and RMa environments is estimated by [45]
Gt Gr Pt
RP = (5)
KTs Γ( PL)( Eb /N0 )
Energies 2023, 16, 5358 8 of 18

where Gt , Gr are transmitter and receiver antenna gains, respectively, Pt is transmitter

power, K is a Bolztman’s constant, PL is the path loss due to various environments, Ts
is noise temperature, Γ is the data rate and Eb /N0 is the ratio of energy per bit to noise
spectral density.

4. Results and Discussion

The path loss and received power are influenced by a wide range of variables since
each model is unique in its design and features depending on the kind of operating environ-
ment it is used in. In this paper, PL and RP are estimated for urban and rural environments,
respectively. The simulation results of the UMi, UMa, and RMa environments for mmWave
frequencies are presented and analyzed in this section. PL and RP are estimated using the
various path-loss models proposed by the standard organizational bodies. Figures 1–9
compare the PL of UMi, UMa, and RMa environments using various models at underuti-
lized mmWave frequency bands of 28 GHz, 38 GHz, 60 GHz and 75 GHz, respectively. It
has been found that the measured PL is affected by the distance (R), carrier frequency (f),
and height of the BS antenna (h1 ).
Path Loss of an UMi Scenario at 28GHz
220
5GCM-SC LOS
5GCM-SC NLOS
200 5GCM-OS LOS
5GCM-OS NLOS
3GPP-SC LOS
180 3GPP-SC NLOS
mmMAGIC-SC LOS
Path Loss (dB)

mmMAGIC-SC NLOS
160

140

120

100

80
100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000
Difference (m)

Figure 1. Path loss of an Urban Micro environment at 28 GHz.

Path Loss of an UMi Scenario at 38 GHz
220
5GCM-SC LOS
5GCM-SC NLOS
200 5GCM-OS LOS
5GCM-OS NLOS
3GPP-SC LOS
180 3GPP-SC NLOS
mmMAGIC-SC LOS
Path Loss (dB)

mmMAGIC-SC NLOS
160

140

120

100

80
100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000
Difference (m)

Figure 2. Path loss of an Urban Micro environment at 38 GHz.

4.1. Path Loss Estimation

Path loss in urban micro, urban macro, and rural macro environments are estimated
using the equations shown in Tables 1–3. Figures 1–4 present the measurement and com-
parison of path loss in the UMi scenario across different frequencies: 28 GHz, 38 GHz,
60 GHz, and 75 GHz. Among the models, the line-of-sight 5GCM-OS model demonstrates
lower path loss, as shown by the findings in Figures 1–4. Notably, the line-of-sight mm-
MAGIC model closely resembles the path loss curve observed in the 5GCM-OS model.
In non-line-of-sight propagation, the path loss of 5GCM-OS is slightly higher than that of
the 3GPP-SC model for distances less than 150 m, equal at a distance of 150 m, and higher
Energies 2023, 16, 5358 9 of 18

than 3GPP-SC for distances greater than 150 m. Consequently, 5GCM-OS exhibits the
lowest path loss beyond 150 m, while 3GPP-SC yields the lowest path loss up to that point.
The mmMAGIC-SC model generates the highest path loss in the NLOS scenario.
Path Loss of an UMi Scenario at 60GHz
220
5GCM-SC LOS
5GCM-SC NLOS
200 5GCM-OS LOS
5GCM-OS NLOS
3GPP-SC LOS
180 3GPP-SC NLOS
mmMAGIC-SC LOS
Path Loss (dB)

mmMAGIC-SC NLOS
160

140

120

100

80
100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000
Difference (m)

Figure 3. Path loss of an Urban Micro environment at 60 GHz.

Path Loss of an UMi Scenario at 75GHz
220
5GCM-SC LOS
5GCM-SC NLOS
200 5GCM-OS LOS
5GCM-OS NLOS
3GPP-SC LOS
180 3GPP-SC NLOS
mmMAGIC-SC LOS
Path Loss (dB)

mmMAGIC-SC NLOS
160

140

120

100

80
100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000
Difference (m)

Figure 4. Path loss of an Urban Micro environment at 75 GHz.

Path Loss of an UMa Scenario at 28GHz
160

150

140
Path Loss (dB)

130

120

110

100
5GCM LOS
5GCM NLOS CI
90 3GPP LOS
3GPP NLOS
80
100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000
Distance (m)

Figure 5. Path loss of an Urban Macro environment at 28 GHz.

It can be seen from Figures 1–4 that each model’s path loss gradually rises with
distance and frequency. The 5GCM-OS model exhibits the lowest path loss in both LOS
and NLOS scenarios for mmWave frequencies at various distances when compared to
other models. Among them, the 3GPP-SC and mmMAGIC-SC models yield the highest
path loss in LOS and NLOS scenarios, respectively. In practical applications, network
providers seek higher signal power and lower path loss. In the UMi scenario, the 5GCM
model produces the least path loss in LOS and NLOS scenarios at variable frequencies and
distances. Therefore, the 5GCM model is considered to be an optimal path-loss model,
Energies 2023, 16, 5358 10 of 18

with an optimal distance of 150 m in urban micro scenarios. Table 5 displays the PL values
for each model at various frequencies.
Path Loss of an UMa Scenario at 38GHz
170

160

150

Path Loss (dB) 140

130

120

110

100
5GCM LOS
5GCM NLOS CI
90 3GPP LOS
3GPP NLOS
80
100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000
Distance (m)

Figure 6. Path loss of an Urban Macro environment at 38 GHz.

Path Loss of an UMa Scenario at 60GHz
170

160

150

140
Path Loss (dB)

130

120

110

100
5GCM LOS
5GCM NLOS CI
90 3GPP LOS
3GPP NLOS
80
100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000
Distance (m)

Figure 7. Path loss of an Urban Macro environment at 60 GHz.

Path Loss of an UMa Scenario at 75GHz
170

160

150

140
Path Loss (dB)

130

120

110

100
5GCM LOS
5GCM NLOS CI
90 3GPP LOS
3GPP NLOS
80
100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000
Distance (m)

Figure 8. Path loss of an Urban Macro environment at 75 GHz.

Path Loss for RMa Scenario

190

180

170

160
Path Loss (dB)

150

140

130 RMa LOS at 28GHz

RMa NLOS at 28GHz
120 RMa LOS at 38GHz
RMa NLOS at 38GHz
110 RMa LOS at 60GHz
RMa NLOS at 60GHz
RMa LOS at 75GHz
100
RMa NLOS at 75GHz

90
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500 5000
Distance (m)

Figure 9. Path loss of Rural Macro environment.

Energies 2023, 16, 5358 11 of 18

Table 5. Path Loss of UMi, UMa and RMa environments at 28 GHz, 38 GHz, 60 GHz and 75 GHz.

Model PL [dB] at R = 100 m PL [dB] at R = 500 m PL [dB] at R = 1000 m

28 38 60 75 28 38 60 75 28 38 60 75
Urban Micro Environment
5GCM-SC LOS 106.7 108.6 112.6 114.5 119.2 121.9 125.9 127.8 125.2 127.8 131.8 133.7
5GCM-OS LOS 104.2 106.0 109.9 111.9 115.6 118.3 123.3 124.2 121.1 123.8 127.7 129.7
3GPP-SC LOS 108.2 110.9 114.9 116.8 122.2 124.8
128.8 130.8 128.4 131.1 135.1 136.9
mmMAGIC-SC LOS 104.8 107.0 111.1 113.1 116.9 119.7 123.9 125.9 122.6 125.1 129.6 131.8
5GCM-SC NLOS 134.2 136.9 140.8 142.8 155.2 157.9 161.9 163.8 164.7 167.3 171.3 173.2
5GCM-OS NLOS 127.3 129.8 133.9 136.0 146.7 149.3 153.3 155.3 156.4 157.9 161.9 163.8
3GPP-SC NLOS 126.9 129.7 133.9 136.0 150.4 153.2 157.2 159.4 160.8 163.7 167.8 169.9
mmMAGIC-SC NLOS 159.7 162.4 166.4 168.3 189.6 192.3 196.2 198.2 203.4 205.6 209.6 211.5
Urban Macro Environment
5GCM LOS 106.1 108.9 112.9 114.5 119.6 122.2 126.2 128.2 125.5 128.2 132.1 134.1
3GPP LOS 105.9 108.5 112.5 114.4 120.5 123.2 127.2 129.1 127.0 129.7 133.7 135.6
5GCM NLOS 129.2 132.0 136.0 137.9 19.3 152.0 155.9 157.9 158.3 160.9 164.9 166.8
3GPP NLOS 115.7 118.3 122.3 124.3 141.8 144.4 148.4 150.3 153.4 156.0 159.9 161.9
Rural Macro Environment
R = 500 m R = 1000 m R = 2000 m
3GPP LOS 120.9 123.6 127.5 129.5 127.7 130.3 134.3 136.2 135.2 137.9 141.8 143.8
3GPP NLOS 136.5 139.1 143.1 145.0 147.9 150.6 154.6 156.5 159.5 162.1 166.1 168.0

Figures 5–8 measure and compare the PL of the urban macro environment at 28 GHz,
38 GHz, 60 GHz, and 75 GHz, respectively. Compared to other models, the line-of-sight
5GCM model produces less path loss, which can be observed in Figures 5–8. The line-of-
sight 3GPP path loss curve closely resembles the path loss in the LOS 5GCM model. In LOS
propagation, the path loss of 5GCM is slightly higher than the path loss of 3GPP model if
the distance is less than 300 m, it is equal at a distance of 300 m, and if the distance is greater
than 300 m, the path loss of 3GPP is higher than the path loss of 5GCM. Therefore, 5GCM
creates the lowest path loss after 300 m while 3GPP generates the lowest path loss up to
that point. The highest path loss is produced by the 5GCM model in the NLOS scenario.
It can be seen from Figures 5–8 that each model’s path loss gradually rises with
distance and frequency. In comparison to the other models, the 5GCM and 3GPP model
generates the lowest path loss in LOS and NLOS scenarios, respectively, and these two
models are assumed as optimal path-loss models and the optimal distance is 300 m in
urban macro scenarios. The detailed PL values at various frequencies are listed in Table 6.
Figure 9 measure and compare the PL of the rural macro environment at 28 GHz,
38 GHz, 60 GHz, and 75 GHz. It can be seen from Figure 9 and Table 4 that path loss
gradually rises with distance and frequency.
Path loss in urban micro cells and urban and rural macro cells can be affected by
various factors such as distance, obstacles, interference, base station antenna height, and fre-
quency band. Observations from Figures 1–9 are that the PL in urban micro cells is generally
higher than in urban macro and rural macro cells due to the lower base station antenna
height. The base station antenna height in urban and rural macro cells is generally higher
than that of an urban micro cell due to the difference in their coverage areas and signal
propagation characteristics.
Macro cells generally possess a larger coverage area compared to micro cells, requir-
ing base stations to transmit signals over greater distances to cover equivalent regions.
Energies 2023, 16, 5358 12 of 18

By placing the antenna at a considerable distance from the ground, signals can traverse
longer distances and cover wider areas. Nevertheless, signal loss can occur in both cell site
types due to interference and obstructions, with the extent of loss contingent on the specific
deployment and environmental conditions. Therefore, 5GCM and 3GPP models are consid-
ered to be optimal path-loss models in urban micro and macro, rural macro environments
at an optimal distance of 150 m and 300 m, and 1000 m, respectively. From the simulation
results, the advantages and disadvantages of each path-loss model are listed in Table 6.

Table 6. Summary of Path loss models.

Parameter 5GCM Model 3GPP Model METIS Model mmMAGIC Model

This model provides the This model provides This model provides
Path Loss in UMi least path loss in LOS highest path loss in highest path loss in
and NLOS Scenarios LOS scenario NLOS Scenario
This model provides the This model provides least
Path Loss in UMa
least path loss in LOS path loss in NLOS scenario
Only the 3GPP model is
used to estimate the path
Path Loss in RMa
loss in rural macro
cellular networks
This model is specifically This model is This model is
designed for 5G This model utilizes a specifically designed to specifically designed
networks, incorporating standardized approach for estimate spectral for 5G networks and it
Advantages unique characteristics path loss estimation in efficiency, energy addresses challenges
associated with 5G cellular networks and also efficiency, improved and opportunities
frequency bands 5G networks coverage, and path loss of mmWave
and technologies in 5G networks frequency bands.
This model estimates the
This model accurately This model accurately This model accurately
path loss for a wide range
estimates the path loss in estimates the path loss estimates the path loss
of propagation
urban micro and macro in urban micro and in urban micro and
environments and
environments macro environments indoor environments
scenarios.
This model does not operating frequency
It does not support It does not support
consider all the real-world range is very small and
Disadvantages non-mmWave non-mmWave
problems while estimating above 6 GHz it does
frequency Bands frequency Bands
the path loss not support
This model lacks accuracy This model is not This model is not
This model is not
in predicting path loss well-suited for urban well-suited for urban
well-suited for rural
within real-world macro rural macro macro rural macro
environments
environments environments environments

4.2. Received Power Estimation

Received power in urban micro, urban macro, and rural macro environments are
estimated using Equation (5). Figures 10–13 measure and compare the received power of
UMi scenario at 28 GHz, 38 GHz, 60 GHz, and 75 GHz, respectively. Compared to other
models, the 5GCM-OS model produces the highest signal power in LOS scenario, which
will be observed from Figures 10–13. The line-of-sight mmMAGIC curve closely resembles
the 5GCM-OS model. In NLOS propagation, the received power of 5GCM-OS is slightly
lower than the received power of 3GPP-SC if the distance is less than 150 m, it is equal at a
distance of 150 m, and if the distance is greater than 150 m, the received power of 3GPP-SC
is lower than the received power of 5GCM-OS model. Therefore, 5GCM-OS creates the
highest received power after 150 m while 3GPP-SC generates the highest received up to
that point. The lowest received power is produced by the mmMAGIC-SC model in the
NLOS scenario.
Energies 2023, 16, 5358 13 of 18

Received Power of an UMi Scenario at 28GHz

-20

-40

-60

Received Power (dBm)

-80

-100
5GCM-SC LOS
5GCM-SC NLOS
-120 5GCM-OS LOS
5GCM-OS NLOS
3GPP-SC LOS
-140 3GPP-SC NLOS
mmMAGIC-SC LOS
mmMAGIC-SC NLOS
-160
100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000
Difference (m)

Figure 10. Received power of an Urban Micro environment at 28 GHz.

Received Power of an UMi Scenario at 38GHz
-20

-40

-60
Received Power (dBm)

-80

-100
5GCM-SC LOS
5GCM-SC NLOS
-120 5GCM-OS LOS
5GCM-OS NLOS
3GPP-SC LOS
-140 3GPP-SC NLOS
mmMAGIC-SC LOS
mmMAGIC-SC NLOS
-160
100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000
Difference (m)

Figure 11. Received power of an Urban Micro environment at 38 GHz.

It can be seen from Figures 10–13 that each model’s received power gradually reduces
with distance and frequency. In comparison to the other models, the 5GCM-OS model
generates the highest power in LOS and NLOS scenarios. The minimum power is produced
by the 3GPP-SC and mmMAGIC-SC models, respectively. Table 7 displays the RP values
for each model at various distances and frequencies.
Received Power of an UMi Scenario at 60GHz
-20

-40

-60
Received Power (dBm)

-80

-100
5GCM-SC LOS
5GCM-SC NLOS
-120 5GCM-OS LOS
5GCM-OS NLOS
3GPP-SC LOS
-140 3GPP-SC NLOS
mmMAGIC-SC LOS
mmMAGIC-SC NLOS
-160
100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000
Difference (m)

Figure 12. Received power of an Urban Micro environment at 60 GHz.

Figures 14–17 measure and compare the received power of an urban macro environ-
ment at 28 GHz, 38 GHz, 60 GHz, and 75 GHz, respectively. Compared to other models,
the line-of-sight 5GCM model produces the highest signal power, which will be observed
from Figures 14–17. The line-of-sight 3GPP curve closely resembles the LOS 5GCM model.
In LOS propagation, the RP of 5GCM is slightly higher than the RP of 3GPP model if the
Energies 2023, 16, 5358 14 of 18

distance is less than 300 m, it is equal at a distance of 300 m, and if the distance is greater
than 300 m, the power of 3GPP is higher than the power of 5GCM. Therefore, 5GCM creates
the lowest signal power after 300 m while 3GPP generates the highest power up to that
point. The minimum power is produced by the 5GCM model in the NLOS scenario at
all frequencies.

Table 7. Received Power of UMi, UMa, and RMa environments at 28 GHz, 38 GHz, 60 GHz, and
75 GHz.

Model PL [dB] at R = 100 m PL [dB] at R = 500 m PL [dB] at R = 1000 m

28 38 60 75 28 38 60 75 28 38 60 75
Urban Micro Environment
5GCM-SC LOS −48.9 −51.6 −55.6 −57.5 −62.2 −64.9 −68.8 −70.8 −68.2 −70.8 −74.8 −76.7
5GCM-OS LOS −46.4 −49.0 −53.0 −54.9 −58.6 −61.3 −65.3 −67.2 −64.1 −66.8 −70.7 −72.7
3GPP-SC LOS −51.2 −53.9 −57.9 −59.8 −65.2 −67.9 −71.8 −73.8 −71.4 −74.1 −78.1 −80.0
mmMAGIC-SC LOS −47.2 −50.0 −53.1 −56.1 −59.9 −62.7 −66.8 −68.9 −65.7 −68.4 −72.6 −74.6
5GCM-SC NLOS −77.2 −79.9 −83.8 −85.8 −98.3 −100.9 −104.9 −106.8 −107.7 −110.3 −114.3 −116.2
5GCM-OS NLOS −69.9 −73.3 −76.9 −79.0 −89.7 −92.3 −96.3 −98.2 −98.3 −100.9 −104.9 −106.8
3GPP-SC NLOS −70.5 −72.7 −76.9 −79.0 −93.4 −96.2 −100.4 −102.5 −103.8 −106.6 −110.9 −112.9
mmMAGIC-SC NLOS −102.7 −105.4 −109.3 −111.3 −132.4 −135.3 −139.2 −141.2 −145.9 −148.6 −152.6 −154.5
Urban Macro Environment
5GCM LOS −49.3 −51.9 −55.9 −57.8 −62.6 −65.2 −69.2 −71.2 −68.5 −71.2 −75.2 −77.1
3GPP LOS −48.9 −51.5 −55.5 −57.4 −63.5 −66.1 −70.1 −72.1 −70.0 −72.7 −76.7 −78.6
5GCM NLOS −72.4 −75.0 −79.0 −80.9 −92.4 −95.0 −98.9 −100.9 −101.3 −103.9 −107.9 −110.0
3GPP NLOS −58.7 −61.4 −65.3 −67.2 −84.5 −87.4 −91.4 −93.3 −96.4 −99.0 −102.9 −104.9
Rural Macro Environment
R = 500 m R = 1000 m R = 2000 m
3GPP LOS −60.9 −63.9 −64.2 −72.5 −70.7 −73.3 −77.3 −79.2 −78.2 −80.9 −84.8 −86.6
3GPP NLOS −79.5 −82.1 −86.1 −88.0 −90.9 −93.6 −97.5 −99.5 −102.5 −105.1 −109.0 −111.0

Received Power of an UMi Scenario at 75GHz

-20

-40

-60
Received Power (dBm)

-80

-100
5GCM-SC LOS
5GCM-SC NLOS
-120 5GCM-OS LOS
5GCM-OS NLOS
3GPP-SC LOS
-140 3GPP-SC NLOS
mmMAGIC-SC LOS
mmMAGIC-SC NLOS
-160
100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000
Difference (m)

Figure 13. Received power of an Urban Micro environment at 75 GHz.

It can be seen from Figures 14–17 that each model’s received power gradually reduces
with distance and frequency. In comparison to the other models, the 5GCM and 3GPP
model generates the highest signal power in LOS and NLOS scenarios, respectively. Table 5
displays the RP values for each model at various distances and frequencies.
Figure 18 measure and compare the RP of rural macro environment at 28 GHz, 38 GHz,
60 GHz, and 75 GHz. It can be seen from Figure 18 and Table 5 that received power
gradually reduces with distance and frequency. received power in urban micro cells,
Energies 2023, 16, 5358 15 of 18

urban and rural macro cells can be affected by various factors such as distance, obstacles,
interference, base station antenna height, and frequency band. Observations from
Figures 10–18 show that the RP in urban micro cells is generally lower than in urban macro
and rural macro cells due to the base station antenna height. The base station antenna
height in urban and rural macro cells is generally higher than that of urban micro cells due
to the difference in their coverage area and signal propagation characteristics.
Received Power of an UMa Scenario at 28GHz
-20
5GCM LOS
-30 5GCM NLOS
3GPP LOS
3GPP NLOS
-40
Received Power (dBm)

-50

-60

-70

-80

-90

-100

-110
100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000
Distance (m)

Figure 14. Received power of an Urban Macro environment at 28 GHz.

Received Power of an UMa Scenario at 38GHz
-20
5GCM LOS
-30 5GCM NLOS
3GPP LOS
3GPP NLOS
-40
Received Power (dBm)

-50

-60

-70

-80

-90

-100

-110
100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000
Distance (m)

Figure 15. Received power of an Urban Macro environment at 38 GHz.

Received Power of an UMa Scenario at 60GHz

-30
5GCM LOS
5GCM NLOS
-40
3GPP LOS
3GPP NLOS
-50
Received Power (dBm)

-60

-70

-80

-90

-100

-110
100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000
Distance (m)

Figure 16. Received power of an Urban Macro environment at 60 GHz.

This paper investigates various existing path-loss models for mmWave frequency
bands to estimate path loss and received power. The results demonstrate that path loss and
received power are influenced by factors such as operating frequency, the distance between
transmitter and receiver antennas, antenna location, antenna height, and their respective
Energies 2023, 16, 5358 16 of 18

positions. Among the models considered, the 5GCM model is found to minimize path loss
and maximize receiver power specifically in the urban micro environment. On the other
hand, the 3GPP model is suitable for both urban and rural macro environments, surpassing
other models by producing the lowest path loss in those respective environments. These
models are recognized as optimal choices for enhancing system performance in terms of
path loss. Service providers can leverage these models to improve the quality of service in
both indoor and outdoor 5G mmWave wireless networks.

Received Power of an UMa Scenario at 75GHz

-30
5GCM LOS
5GCM NLOS
-40
3GPP LOS
3GPP NLOS
-50
Received Power (dBm)

-60

-70

-80

-90

-100

-110
100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000
Distance (m)

Figure 17. Received power of an Urban Macro environment at 75 GHz.

Received Power of RMa Scenario

-30
RMa LOS at 28GHz
-40 RMa NLOS at 28GHz
RMa LOS at 38GHz
-50 RMa NLOS at 38GHz
RMa LOS at 60GHz
Received Power (dBm)

-60 RMa NLOS at 60GHz

RMa LOS at 75GHz
-70 RMa NLOS at 75GHz

-80

-90

-100

-110

-120

-130
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500 5000
Distance (m)

Figure 18. Received power of a Rural Macro environment.

5. Conclusions
Path loss and signal power in urban and rural environments can be affected by various
factors such as distance, obstacles, interference, antenna height, and frequency band.
The actual amount of loss will depend on the specific deployment and environmental
factors. In this paper, mmWave frequency band, large-scale path-loss models and UMi,
UMa, and RMa scenarios are considered to estimate the path loss and signal power. PL and
RP are estimated for 28 GHz, 38 GHz, 60 GHz, and 75 GHz using various path-loss models.
From the results, it is predicted that the path loss is lower and the signal power is higher in
an urban micro scenario than the in urban macro and rural macro scenarios, and out of all
four models used, the 5GCM model achieves lower path loss and higher signal power in
all environments. In the future, we want to estimate and compare the path loss of urban
micro, macro, and rural macro environments using optimization algorithms like GA, PSO,
and GWO.

Author Contributions: Conceptualization, C.S.; methodology, C.S.; software, C.S.; validation, M.R.
and L.L.C.; writing—original draft preparation, C.S. and M.R.; reviewing, editing, and supervision,
M.R., A.W., A.F.O. and M.H.J.; funding acquisition, M.R. All authors have read and agreed to the
published version of the manuscript.
Energies 2023, 16, 5358 17 of 18

Funding: This work is supported and funded by the Fundamental Research Grant Scheme-FRGS/1/
2021/ICT09/MMU/02/1, Ministry of Higher Education, Malaysia.
Data Availability Statement: Not applicable.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare that there is no conflict of interest in this paper.

References
1. Series, M. Guidelines for Evaluation of Radio Interface Technologies for IMT-2020; Report ITU 2512; 2017. Available online: https:
//www.itu.int/pub/R-REP-M.2412-2017 (accessed on 28 June 2023). .
2. William, L.; Queder, F.; Haucap, J. 5G: A new future for Mobile Network Operators, or not? Telecommun. Policy 2021, 45, 102086.
3. Alquhali, A.H.; Roslee, M.; Alias, M.Y.; Mohamed, K.S. IOT Based Real-Time Vehicle Tracking System. In Proceedings of the 2019
IEEE Conference on Sustainable Utilization and Development in Engineering and Technologies (CSUDET), Penang, Malaysia,
7–9 November 2019; pp. 265–270.
4. Billa, A.; Shayea, I.; Alhammadi, A.; Abdullah, Q.; Roslee, M. An overview of indoor localization technologies: Toward IoT
navigation services. In Proceedings of the 2020 IEEE 5th International Symposium on Telecommunication Technologies (ISTT),
Shah Alam, Malaysia, 9–11 November 2020; IEEE: Piscataway, NJ, USA , 2020; pp. 76–81.
5. Kordi, K.A.; Alhammadi, A.; Roslee, M.; Alias, M.Y.; Abdullah, Q. A Review on Wireless Emerging IoT Indoor Localization. In
Proceedings of the 2020 IEEE 5th International Symposium on Telecommunication Technologies (ISTT), Shah Alam, Malaysia,
9–11 November 2020; pp. 82–87.
6. Rappaport, T.S.; Sun, S.; Mayzus, R.; Zhao, H.; Azar, Y.; Wang, K.; Wong, G.N.; Schulz, J.K.; Samimi, M.; Gutierrez, F. Millimeter
wave mobile communications for 5G cellular: It will work! IEEE Access 2013, 1, 335–349. [CrossRef]
7. Shu, S.; MacCartney, G.R.; Rappaport, T.S. A novel millimeter-wave channel simulator and applications for 5G wireless
communications. In Proceedings of the 2017 IEEE International Conference on Communications (ICC), Paris, France, 21–25 May
2017; IEEE: Piscataway, NJ, USA, 2017.
8. Mohamed, K.S.; Alias, M.Y.; Roslee, M.; Raji, Y.M. Towards green communication in 5G systems: Survey on beamforming concept.
IET Commun. 2021, 15, 142–154. [CrossRef]
9. Narekar; P.N.; Bhalerao, D.M. A survey on obstacles for 5G communication. In Proceedings of the 2015 International Conference
on Communications and Signal Processing (ICCSP), Melmaruvathur, India, 2–4 April 2015; IEEE: Piscataway, NJ, USA, 2015.
10. Imran, D.; Farooqi, M.M.; Khattak, M.I.; Ullah, Z.; Khan, M.I.; Khattak, M.A.; Dar, H. Millimeter wave microstrip patch antenna
for 5G mobile communication. In Proceedings of the 2018 International Conference on Engineering and Emerging Technologies
(ICEET), Lahore, Pakistan, 22–23 February 2018; IEEE: Piscataway, NJ, USA, 2018.
11. Mardeni, R.; Subari, K.S.; Shahdan, I.S. Design of bow tie antenna in CST studio suite below 2GHz for ground penetrating radar
applications. In Proceedings of the 2011 IEEE International RF & Microwave Conference, Seremban, Malaysia, 12–14 December
2011; IEEE: Piscataway, NJ, USA, 2011.
12. Roslee, M.; Azmir, R.S.; Abdullah, R.; Shafr, H.Z.M. Road pavement density analysis using a new non-destructive ground
penetrating radar system. Prog. Electromagn. Res. 2010, 21, 399–417. [CrossRef]
13. Roy, S.; Tiang, R.J.J.; Roslee, M.B.; Ahmed, M.T.; Mahmud, M.P. Quad-band multiport rectenna for RF energy harvesting in
ambient environment. IEEE Access 2021, 9, 77464–77481. [CrossRef]
14. Osama, A.; Roslee, M.B.; Yusoff, Z.B. Simulated annealing for resource allocation in downlink NOMA systems in 5G networks.
Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, 4592.
15. Alquhali, A.H.; Roslee, M.B.; Alias, M.Y.; Mohamed, K.S. D2D communication for spectral efficiency improvement and interfer-
ence reduction: A survey. Bull. Electr. Eng. Inform. 2020, 9, 1085–1094. [CrossRef]
16. Docomo, N. White Paper on 5G Channel Model for Bands up to 100 GHz. Tech. Rep. 2016 . Available online: http://www.
5gworkshops.com/5gcm.html (accessed on 28 June 2023 ).
17. Jaeckel, S.; Peter, M.; Sakaguchi, K.; Keusgen, W.; Medbo, J. 5G Channel Models in mm-Wave Frequency Bands. In Proceedings of
the European Wireless 2016: 22th European Wireless Conference, Oulu, Finland, 18–20 May 2016; pp. 1–6.
18. Medbø, J.I.; Borner, K.; Haneda, K.; Hovinen, V.; Imai, T.; Jarvelainen, J.; Jamsa, T.; Karttunen, A.; Kusume, K.; Kyrolainen, J.; et al.
Channel modelling for the fifth generation mobile communications. In Proceedings of the 8th European Conference on Antennas
and Propagation (EuCAP 2014), The Hague, Netherlands, 6–11 April 2014; IEEE: Piscataway, NJ, USA, 2014.
19. Rappaport, T.S.; Xing, Y.; MacCartney, G.R.; Molisch, A.F.; Mellios, E.; Zhang, J. Overview of millimeter wave communications for
fifth-generation (5G) wireless networks—With a focus on propagation models. IEEE Trans. Antennas Propag. 2017, 65, 6213–6230.
[CrossRef]
20. Oladimeji, T.T.; Kumar, P.; Oyie, N.O. Propagation path loss prediction modelling in enclosed environments for 5G networks: A
review. Heliyon 2022, 8, E11581. [CrossRef]
21. Oladimeji, T.T.; Kumar, P.; Elmezughi, M.K. Performance analysis of improved path loss models for millimeter-wave wireless
network channels at 28 GHz and 38 GHz. PLoS ONE 2023, 18, e0283005. [CrossRef]
22. Zhang, Y.; Wen, J.; Yang, G.; He, Z.; Wang, J. Path loss prediction based on machine learning: Principle, method, and data
expansion. Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, 1908. [CrossRef]
Energies 2023, 16, 5358 18 of 18

23. Jakob, T.; Zibar, D.; Christiansen, H.L. Model-aided deep learning method for path loss prediction in mobile communication
systems at 2.6 GHz. IEEE Access 2020, 8, 7925–7936.
24. Nguyen, C.; Cheema, A.A. A deep neural network-based multi-frequency path loss prediction model from 0.8 GHz to 70 GHz.
Sensors 2021, 21, 5100. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
25. Hasan, R.; Mowla, M.M.; Rashid, M.A.; Hosain, M.K.; Ahmad, I. A statistical analysis of channel modeling for 5G mmwave
communications. In Proceedings of the 2019 International Conference on Electrical, Computer and Communication Engineering
(ECCE), Cox’s Bazar, Bangladesh, 7–9 February 2019; IEEE: Piscataway, NJ, USA, 2019.
26. Lodro, M.; Majeed, N.; Khuwaja, A.A.; Sodhro, A.H.; Greedy, S. Statistical channel modelling of 5G mmWave MIMO wireless
communication. In Proceedings of the 2018 International Conference on Computing, Mathematics and Engineering Technologies
(iCoMET), Sukkur, Pakistan, 3–4 March 2018; IEEE: Piscataway, NJ, USA, 2018.
27. Aldhaibani, A.O.; Rahman, T.A.; Alwarafy, A. Radio-propagation measurements and modeling in indoor stairwells at millimeter-
wave bands. Phys. Commun. 2020, 38, 100955. [CrossRef]
28. Brata, M.; Zakia, I. Path Loss Estimation of 5G Millimeter Wave Propagation Channel—Literature Survey. In Proceedings of the
2021 7th International Conference on Wireless and Telematics (ICWT), Yogyakarta, Indonesia, 21–22 July 2022; IEEE: Piscataway,
NJ, USA, 2021.
29. MacCartney, G.R.; Zhang, J.; Nie, S.; Rappaport, T.T. Path loss models for 5G millimeter wave propagation channels in urban
microcells. In Proceedings of the 2013 IEEE Global Communications Conference (GLOBECOM), Atlanta, GA, USA, 9–13 December
2013; IEEE: Piscataway, NJ, USA, 2013.
30. Abhayawardhana, V.S.; Wassell, I.J.; Crosby, D.B.; Sellars, M.P.; Brown, M. Comparison of empirical propagation path loss models
for fixed wireless access systems. In Proceedings of the 2005 IEEE 61st Vehicular Technology Conference, Stockholm, Sweden,
30 May–1 June 2005; IEEE: Piscataway, NJ, USA, 2005; Volume 1.
31. Roslee, B.M.; Kwan, K.F. Optimization of Hata propagation prediction model in suburban area in Malaysia. Prog. Electromagn.
Res. C 2010, 13, 91–106. [CrossRef]
32. Obot, A.; Simeon, O.; Afolayan, J. Comparative analysis of path loss prediction models for urban macrocellular environments.
Niger. J. Technol. 2011, 30, 50–59.
33. Masui, H.; Kobayashi, T.; Akaike, M. Microwave path-loss modeling in urban line-of-sight environments. IEEE J. Sel. Areas
Commun. 2002, 20, 1151–1155. [CrossRef]
34. Xue, Q.; Liu, Y.; Sun, Y.; Wang, J.; Yan, L.; Feng, G.; Ma, S. Beam Management in Ultra-Dense mmWave Network via Federated
Reinforcement Learning: An Intelligent and Secure Approach. IEEE Trans. Cogn. Commun. Netw. 2023, 9, 185–197. [CrossRef]
35. Lin, Z.; Lin, M.; Champagne, B.; Zhu, W.; Al-Dhahir, N. Secrecy-Energy Efficient Hybrid Beamforming for Satellite-Terrestrial
Integrated Networks. IEEE Trans. Commun. 2021, 69, 6345–6360. [CrossRef]
36. Lin, Z.; An K.; Niu, H.; Hu, Y.; Chatzinotas, S.; Zheng, G.; Wang, J. SLNR-Based Secure Energy Efficient Beamforming in
Multibeam Satellite Systems. IEEE Trans. Aerosp. Electron. Syst. 2023, 59, 2085–2088. [CrossRef]
37. Lin, Z.; Niu, H.; An K.; Wang, Y.; Zheng, G.; Chatzinotas, S.; Hu, Y. Refracting RIS-Aided Hybrid Satellite-Terrestrial Relay
Networks: Joint Beamforming Design and Optimization. IEEE Trans. Aerosp. Electron. Syst. 2022, 58, 3717–3724. [CrossRef]
38. Rappaport, T.S.; MacCartney, G.R.; Samimi, M.; Sun, S. Wideband millimeter-wave propagation measurements and channel
models for future wireless communication system design. IEEE Trans. Commun. 2015, 63, 3029–3056. [CrossRef]
39. MacCartney, G,R., Jr.; Sun, S.; Rappaport, T.T.; Xing, Y.; Yan, H.; Koka, J.; Wang, R.; Yu, D. Millimeter wave wireless communica-
tions: New results for rural connectivity. In Proceedings of the 5th Workshop on all Things Cellular: Operations, Applications
and Challenges, New York, NY, USA, 3–7 October 2016.
40. Thomas, T.A.; Rybakowski, M.; Sun, S.; Rappaport, T.T.; Nguyen, H.C.; Kovács, I.Z.; Rodriguez, I. A prediction study of path
loss models from 2 to 73.5 GHz in an urban-macro environment. In Proceedings of the 2016 IEEE 83rd Vehicular Technology
Conference (VTC Spring), Nanjing, China, 15–18 May 2016; IEEE: Piscataway, NJ, USA, 2016.
41. Haneda, K.; Tian, L.; Zheng, Y.; Asplund, H.; Li, J.; Wang, Y.; Steer, D.; Li, C.; Balercia, T.; Lee, S.; et al. 5G 3GPP-like channel
models for outdoor urban microcellular and macrocellular environments. In Proceedings of the 2016 IEEE 83rd Vehicular
Technology Conference (VTC Spring), Nanjing, China, 15–18 May 2016; IEEE: Piscataway, NJ, USA, 2016.
42. Sun, S. ; Thomas, T.A.; Rappaport, T.T.; Nguyen, H.C.; Kovács, I.Z.; Rodriguez, I. Path loss, shadow fading, and line-of-sight
probability models for 5G urban macro-cellular scenarios. In Proceedings of the 2015 IEEE Globecom Workshops (GC Wkshps),
San Diego, CA, USA, 6–10 December 2015; IEEE: Piscataway, NJ, USA, 2015.
43. Rappaport, T.S.; Sun, S.; Shafi, M. Investigation and comparison of 3GPP and NYUSIM channel models for 5G wireless
communications. In Proceedings of the 2017 IEEE 86th Vehicular Technology Conference (VTC-Fall), Toronto, ON, Canada, 24–27
September 2017; IEEE: Piscataway, NJ, USA, 2017.
44. MacCartney, R.G.; Rappaport, T.S. Rural macrocell path loss models for millimeter wave wireless communications. IEEE J. Sel.
Areas Commun. 2017, 35, 1663–1677. [CrossRef]
45. Bernard, S. Digital Communications; Prentice Hall: Upper Saddle River, NJ, USA, 2001; Volume 2.

Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual
author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to
people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.