evaluation and performance analysis of propagation models for wimax

More documents

Recommendations

Info

IRACST - International Journal of Advanced Computing, Engineering and Application (IJACEA),Vol. 1, No.1, 2012RuralPath loss dB20015010050154144154152150148143132137121 121 121109 109 109 109 109 1090COST-Hata ERICSSON SUI COST-WI FSPL FSPLRx height 3m 154 154 148 121 109 109Rx height 6m 144 152 143 121 109 109Rx height 10m 132 150 137 121 109 109Distance at 2.5 kmFig. 7. Path loss in suburban environment at 6 mreceiver antenna height.Fig. 9. Analysis of simulation results for suburbanenvironment in different receiver antenna height.6.3 Analysis of simulation results in flat areaWe set 3 different antenna heights (i.e. 3 m, 6 m and 10m) for receiver, distance varies from 250 m to 5 km andtransmitter antenna height is 20 m. COST 231 W-I modelhas no specific parameters for rural area, we considerLOS equation provided by this model The numericalresults for different models in urban area for differentreceiver antenna heights are shown in the Figure 10, 11,and 12.Fig. 8. Path loss in suburban environment at 10 mreceiver antenna height.The accumulated results for suburban environment areshown in figure 9. In following chart, it showed that theSUI model predict the lowest path loss (121 dB to 116dB) in this terrain with little bit flections at changes ofreceiver antenna heights. Ericsson model showed theheights path loss (160 dB and 158 dB) predictionespecially at 6 m and 10 m receiver antenna height. TheCOST-WI model showed the moderate result withremarkable fluctuations of path loss with-respect-toantenna heights changes. The ECC-33 model showedthe same path loss as like as urban environmentbecause of same parameters are used in the simulation.Fig. 10. Path loss in rural environment at 3 m receiverantenna height.23
Fig. 13. Analysis of simulation results for ruralenvironment in different receiver antenna height.Fig. 11. Path loss in rural environment at 6 m receiverantenna height.Fig. 12. Path loss in rural environment at 10 m receiverantenna height.The accumulated results for rural environment are shownin Figure 13. In this environment COST 231 Hata modelshowed the lowest path loss (132 dB) predictionespecially in 10 m receiver antenna height. COST 231W-I model showed the flat results in all changes ofreceiver antenna heights. There are no specificparameters for rural area. In our simulation, weconsidered LOS equation for this environment (thereason is we can expect line of sight signal if the area isflat enough with less vegetations). Ericsson modelshowed the heights path loss (154 dB to 150 dB).Path loss dB200150100500Rural154144154152150148143132137121 121 121Distance at 2.5 km109 109 109 109 109 109COST-Hata ERICSSON SUI COST-WI FSPL FSPLRx height 3m 154 154 148 121 109 109Rx height 6m 144 152 143 121 109 109Rx height 10m 132 150 137 121 109 1097 CONCLUSIONOur comparative analysis indicate that due to multipathand NLOS environment in urban and suburban area, SUImodels experiences lowest path losses compare to flatarea. In flat area COST-Hata model provide lowest pathloss than SUI model at 10 m receiver antenna height.Moreover, we did not find any single model that can berecommended for all environments.We can see in urban area (data shown in Figure 5), theSUI model showed the lowest path loss (121 dB in 10 mreceiver antenna height) as compared to other models.Alternatively, the ECC-33 model showed the heightspath loss (156 dB in 3 m receiver antenna height).In suburban area (data shown in Figure 9) the SUI modelshowed quite less path loss (116 dB) compared to othermodels. On the other hand, ECC-33 model showedheights path loss as showed in urban area. Moreover,Ericsson model showed remarkable higher path loss for6 m and 10 m receiver antenna heights (i.e.160 dB and158 dB respectively).In rural area (data shown in Figure 13), we can choosedifferent models for different perspectives. If the area isflat enough with less vegetation, where the LOS signalprobability is high, in that case, we may consider LOScalculation. Alternatively, if there is less probability to getLOS signal, in that situation, we can see COST-Hatamodel showed the less path loss (132 dB) compare toSUI model (137 dB) and Ericsson model (150 dB)especially in 10 m receiver antenna height. Butconsidering all receiver antenna heights SUI modelshowed less path loss (148 dB in 3 m and 143 dB in 6 m)whereas COST-Hata showed higher path loss (154 dB in3m and 144 dB in 6 m).If we consider the worst case scenario for deploying acoverage area, we can serve the maximum coverage byusing more transmission power, but it will increase theprobability of interference with the adjacent area with thesame frequency blocks. On the other hand, if weconsider less path loss model for deploying a cellularregion, it may be inadequate to serve the wholecoverage area. Some users may be out of signal in theoperating cell especially during mobile condition. So, wehave to trade-off between transmission power andadjacent frequency blocks interference while choosing apath loss model for initial deployment.8 FUTURE WORKSThis is a formal ending of very small stage of a neverending process. Nowadays the WorldwideInteroperability of Microwave Access (WiMAX)technology becomes popular and receives growingacceptance as a Broadband Wireless Access (BWA)system. In future, our simulated results can be testedand verified in practical field. We may also derive a24
Page 1: EVALUATION AND PERFORMANCE ANALYSIS
Page 5 and 6: : Receiver antenna height gain fact
Page 7: UrbanP a t h l o s s d B20015010050
Page 11: Master‘s Degree in Information an

evaluation and performance analysis of propagation models for wimax

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?