15.07.2013 Views

Handbook of Propagation Effects for Vehicular and ... - Courses

Handbook of Propagation Effects for Vehicular and ... - Courses

Handbook of Propagation Effects for Vehicular and ... - Courses

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

Attenuation Due to Roadside Trees: Mobile Case 3-27<br />

3.7.2 Empirical Fading Model (EFM)<br />

This model was derived from measurements made by the Centre <strong>for</strong> Satellite Engineering<br />

at the University <strong>of</strong> Surrey, UK. It is based on simultaneous measurements at L, S, <strong>and</strong><br />

Ku b<strong>and</strong>s at the higher elevation angles from 60° to 80° [Butt et al., 1993; 1995]. This<br />

model also has a <strong>for</strong>m similar to the ERS model (3-3) <strong>and</strong> is given by<br />

with<br />

A ( P,<br />

θ , f ) = −M<br />

ln( P)<br />

+ N<br />

(3-24)<br />

M = −0.<br />

029θ<br />

+ 0.<br />

182 f<br />

N = −0.<br />

129θ<br />

+ 1.<br />

483 f +<br />

+<br />

6.<br />

315<br />

21.<br />

374<br />

(3-25)<br />

<strong>and</strong> where A( P, θ , f ) is the attenuation (in dB) at the percentage P (in %) valid from 1%<br />

to 20%, θ is the elevation angle (in degrees) applicable from 60° to 80°, <strong>and</strong> the<br />

frequency f (in GHz) may be applied in the range 1.3 GHz to 10.4 GHz. The<br />

multiplying constants on the right h<strong>and</strong> side <strong>of</strong> M in (3-25) are the negative <strong>of</strong> those<br />

presented by Butt et al. [1993, 1995] because M in (3-24) is preceded by a negative sign<br />

to maintain consistency with the EERS model. (Their multiplying coefficient was<br />

positive). Figure 3-25 shows a comparison <strong>of</strong> the above model distribution at 60°<br />

elevation with those corresponding to the EERS, MERS, <strong>and</strong> CEFM (to be described<br />

shortly). It is interesting to note that the other three models cluster about one another,<br />

whereas the EFM model deviates considerably from the grouping; especially at<br />

percentages smaller than 5%.

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!