https://urgentcomm.com/wp-content/themes/ucm_child/assets/images/logo/footer-new-logo.png
  • Home
  • News
  • Multimedia
    • Back
    • Multimedia
    • Video
    • Podcasts
    • Galleries
    • IWCE’s Video Showcase
    • IWCE 2022 Winter Showcase
    • IWCE 2023 Pre-event Guide
  • Commentary
    • Back
    • Commentary
    • Urgent Matters
    • View From The Top
    • All Things IWCE
    • Legal Matters
  • Resources
    • Back
    • Resources
    • Webinars
    • White Papers
    • Reprints & Reuse
  • IWCE
    • Back
    • IWCE
    • Conference
    • Special Events
    • Exhibitor Listings
    • Premier Partners
    • Floor Plan
    • Exhibiting Information
    • Register for IWCE
  • About Us
    • Back
    • About Us
    • Contact Us
    • Advertise
    • Terms of Service
    • Privacy Statement
    • Cookie Policy
  • Related Sites
    • Back
    • American City & County
    • IWCE
    • Light Reading
    • IOT World Today
    • Mission Critical Technologies
    • TU-Auto
  • In the field
    • Back
    • In the field
    • Broadband Push-to-X
    • Internet of Things
    • Project 25
    • Public-Safety Broadband/FirstNet
    • Virtual/Augmented Reality
    • Land Mobile Radio
    • Long Term Evolution (LTE)
    • Applications
    • Drones/Robots
    • IoT/Smart X
    • Software
    • Subscriber Devices
    • Video
  • Call Center/Command
    • Back
    • Call Center/Command
    • Artificial Intelligence
    • NG911
    • Alerting Systems
    • Analytics
    • Dispatch/Call-taking
    • Incident Command/Situational Awareness
    • Tracking, Monitoring & Control
  • Network Tech
    • Back
    • Network Tech
    • Interoperability
    • LMR 100
    • LMR 200
    • Backhaul
    • Deployables
    • Power
    • Tower & Site
    • Wireless Networks
    • Coverage/Interference
    • Security
    • System Design
    • System Installation
    • System Operation
    • Test & Measurement
  • Operations
    • Back
    • Operations
    • Critical Infrastructure
    • Enterprise
    • Federal Government/Military
    • Public Safety
    • State & Local Government
    • Training
  • Regulations
    • Back
    • Regulations
    • Narrowbanding
    • T-Band
    • Rebanding
    • TV White Spaces
    • None
    • Funding
    • Policy
    • Regional Coordination
    • Standards
  • Organizations
    • Back
    • Organizations
    • AASHTO
    • APCO
    • DHS
    • DMR Association
    • ETA
    • EWA
    • FCC
    • IWCE
    • NASEMSO
    • NATE
    • NXDN Forum
    • NENA
    • NIST/PSCR
    • NPSTC
    • NTIA/FirstNet
    • P25 TIG
    • TETRA + CCA
    • UTC
Urgent Communications
  • NEWSLETTER
  • Home
  • News
  • Multimedia
    • Back
    • Video
    • Podcasts
    • Omdia Crit Comms Circle Podcast
    • Galleries
    • IWCE’s Video Showcase
    • IWCE 2023 Pre-event Guide
    • IWCE 2022 Winter Showcase
  • Commentary
    • Back
    • All Things IWCE
    • Urgent Matters
    • View From The Top
    • Legal Matters
  • Resources
    • Back
    • Webinars
    • White Papers
    • Reprints & Reuse
    • UC eZines
    • Sponsored content
  • IWCE
    • Back
    • Conference
    • Why Attend
    • Exhibitor Listing
    • Floor Plan
    • Exhibiting Information
    • Join the Event Mailing List
  • About Us
    • Back
    • About Us
    • Contact Us
    • Advertise
    • Cookie Policy
    • Terms of Service
    • Privacy Statement
  • Related Sites
    • Back
    • American City & County
    • IWCE
    • Light Reading
    • IOT World Today
    • TU-Auto
  • newsletter
  • In the field
    • Back
    • Internet of Things
    • Broadband Push-to-X
    • Project 25
    • Public-Safety Broadband/FirstNet
    • Virtual/Augmented Reality
    • Land Mobile Radio
    • Long Term Evolution (LTE)
    • Applications
    • Drones/Robots
    • IoT/Smart X
    • Software
    • Subscriber Devices
    • Video
  • Call Center/Command
    • Back
    • Artificial Intelligence
    • NG911
    • Alerting Systems
    • Analytics
    • Dispatch/Call-taking
    • Incident Command/Situational Awareness
    • Tracking, Monitoring & Control
  • Network Tech
    • Back
    • Cybersecurity
    • Interoperability
    • LMR 100
    • LMR 200
    • Backhaul
    • Deployables
    • Power
    • Tower & Site
    • Wireless Networks
    • Coverage/Interference
    • Security
    • System Design
    • System Installation
    • System Operation
    • Test & Measurement
  • Operations
    • Back
    • Critical Infrastructure
    • Enterprise
    • Federal Government/Military
    • Public Safety
    • State & Local Government
    • Training
  • Regulations
    • Back
    • Narrowbanding
    • T-Band
    • Rebanding
    • TV White Spaces
    • None
    • Funding
    • Policy
    • Regional Coordination
    • Standards
  • Organizations
    • Back
    • AASHTO
    • APCO
    • DHS
    • DMR Association
    • ETA
    • EWA
    • FCC
    • IWCE
    • NASEMSO
    • NATE
    • NXDN Forum
    • NENA
    • NIST/PSCR
    • NPSTC
    • NTIA/FirstNet
    • P25 TIG
    • TETRA + CCA
    • UTC
acc.com

Coverage/Interference


Coverage prediction for digital mobile systems (Part 1)

Coverage prediction for digital mobile systems (Part 1)

The rapid growth in mobile communications systems over the past several years has lead to increasing use of digital modulation techniques to transmit
  • Written by Urgent Communications Administrator
  • 1st January 1997

The rapid growth in mobile communications systems over the past several years has lead to increasing use of digital modulation techniques to transmit information. Whether it's cellular, PCS, paging, two-way mobile or SMR trunking, essentially every aspect of mobile communication has been affected by the "digital revolution." Digital techniques allow much greater flexibility for encoding and processing information, which makes possible more efficient and robust transmission than previously achieved with analog systems.

In designing any radio system, a fundamental task is to predict the coverage of a proposed system and to determine whether the intended service objectives are met. Over the years a wide variety of approaches have been developed to predict coverage using what are known as propagation models. Propagation in this context simply means the transfer or transmission of signals from the transmitter to the receiver. Propagation modeling is an effort to predict what happens to signals en route from the transmitter to the receiver. Obviously the signal gets weaker, and everyone has experienced other signal impairments such as multipath fading. In large part, the design of modulation techniques and radio system hardware, including antennas, is directed toward combating the signal impairments that happen during propagation.

The traditional approaches to propagation modeling, which have been developed for analog systems, were intended only to predict signal attenuation, or path loss, as the signal traveled from the transmitter to the receiver. While these approaches have been adequate for most analog systems, digital systems need new techniques to produce other information in addition to path loss. This information may actually be the controlling factor on system performance or coverage, even when the signal-to-noise ratio is well above the value otherwise necessary to achieve perfect reception.

In the following sections of this article, various approaches to propagation modeling will be discussed with a view toward their strengths and weaknesses when used with digital systems. The most incisive approach based on ray-tracing techniques will be used to explore some of the propagation factors which specifically affect digital system performance and coverage.

Empirical vs. physical models The most common approaches to propagation modeling are:

*empirical models that use measurement data to define a model path loss equation.

*physical models of path loss that use physical radio wave principles such as free space transmission, reflection or diffraction.

Empirical Models — In the VHF/UHF frequency bands, examples of empirical propagation models are the FCC and ITU-R models (see References). The FCC uses propagation curves that were fitted to a set of signal strength measurements done at several locations in the United States. The propagation model as represented by a set of curves for different frequency bands shows field strength vs. distance for a range of transmit antenna height above average terrain (HAAT) values. The ITU-R has similar curves based on HAAT as set forth in Rec. 370-6. The ITU-R method also provides for corrections to take into account "terrain roughness" or [DELTA]h, the 10% to 90% inter-decile terrain variation over the path. These models make use of measurement data instead of electromagnetic wave principles to define the prediction. As such, the FCC and ITU-R models are classic examples of purely empirical models.

Another model commonly used in mobile radio and cellular work is the Hata model, which is a set of equations based on measurements and graphs developed by Okumura. This is also an excellent example of an empirical model.

Empirical models use what are known as "predictors" or "specifiers" in general statistical modeling theory. Predictors are parameters which have been found through statistical analysis to bear a relationship to (are correlated with) the quantity which is to be predicted. In econometric models, the objective may be to predict gross national product (GNP). In doing so, the model may use values such as unemployment, disposable income or balance of trade as predictors. All of these factors may have been found to be correlated with GNP, but none of them directly causes GNP to go up or down. Similarly, in the field of psychology, one may find a correlation between a child's IQ and the family annual income, but higher family income does not cause the child's IQ to be higher. There are other mechanisms at work. In medicine, misinterpretation of the significance of empirical studies have lead to such absurd headlines as "Coffee causes cancer." The textbook axiom is "Correlation does not prove causality."

In the case of the FCC model, through statistical analysis, a correlation was found between antenna HAAT and signal strength. But this was only correlation, not a causal relationship. Indeed, one could not conceive of a radio propagation mechanism where the simple average elevation value directly changes the magnitude of an electric or magnetic field at the receiver. The consequence of this approach is easily illustrated in Figures 1 and 2 on page 38, which show two terrain profiles along a 25km path separating the transmitter and receiver. The 3km-16 km HAAT values (as specified in the FCC Rules) for the transmit and receive antennas are the same for both terrain profiles in Figures 1 and 2, but the field strength at the receiver will be much lower in Figure 2 due to the obstruction of the nearby hill. A similar example could be constructed for [DELTA]h in which a valley and a mountain along two paths both have the same inter-decile elevation variation, yet the field strength at the receiver on the path with the mountain will be much lower than on the path with the valley. The inability to explicitly account for particular features of the propagation environment is perhaps the greatest limitation of empirical, measurement-based models.

The accuracy and usefulness of such empirical models also depends on the environment where the original data for the model was taken and how universally applicable that environment is. A common problem is trying to use empirical models in areas where the propagation environment is widely different from the environment where the data was gathered. In the Hata model based on the work of Okumura, propagation path loss is defined for "urban," "suburban" and "open" environments. These correction factors in Okumura's work are an effort to refine the predictions, but unless the characteristics of "urban," "suburban," and "open" for your study area are reasonably similar to those in Japan, where the measurement data was taken, these finer-grained classifications may not be of much use.

In spite of their limitations, empirical models such as the FCC, ITU-R, and Hata models are still widely used because they are simple and allow rapid computer calculation. They also have a certain "comfort" factor in that people using them in certain circumstances over time have come to know what to expect and to make their own ad-hoc "corrections" to the prediction values provided by the model. When the propagation environment is fairly homogeneous and similar to the environment where the model measurements were taken, an empirical model can achieve reasonably good prediction results.

With the recent advent of automated field strength measurement systems with GPS position logging, it is now relatively easy to acquire vast amounts of measurement data. This has lead to the use of custom empirical propagation models that are path-loss equations or formulas "tuned" for a given system, or even for a given transmitter or cell base station within a system. With such extensive use of measurement results, however, it is appropriate to question whether these models are really prediction methods at all, when in essence the answers are used to "predict" the answers. In spite of their heavy reliance on measurement data, such customized models will still fail to adequately account for propagation environment features such as the hill in Figure 2.

Digital communication systems require a wider variety of information from propagation models than just signal strength to predict coverage and performance. With empirical models, each new category of information represents another set of measurements that has to be taken. As an example, RMS delay spread (defined later) has recently become a routinely used factor in predicting the performance of wideband digital communication systems. For an empirical model to be useful for such systems, another set of measurement data using a channel sounder would have to be acquired and appropriate statistical analysis would have to be done to determine statistically significant predictors of RMS delay spread. All the same limitations of empirical modeling pointed out above would still apply, but when signal strength and RMS delay spread predictions are both considered as separate dimensions in the prediction problem, the difficulties of the empirical approach multiply. This problem is aggravated as other information types such as signal fading statistics are added. As the amount of data increases, the attraction of the empirical modeling approach diminishes.

Physical Models — Unlike empirical propagation models, physical models don't use measurement data for predictions but instead rely on physical laws governing the interaction of electromagnetic waves with the physical elements of the propagation environment. Fundamentally, all of these interactions can be derived from Maxwell's equations (see Balanis, References).

To be effective, physical models require detailed descriptions of the elements of propagation environment for their predictions. For this reason, the weakness of physical models is that they require extensive databases of information (such as terrain elevations, building wall locations or surface material characteristics) that in turn require significant computer resources to take all this information into account to perform the required propagation calculations. To reduce this problem, simplified descriptions of the propagation environment are usually employed. A typical example is representing an obstructing mountain ridge like that shown in Figure 2 as a single isolated "knife-edge." The effect of a single knife-edge on the signal is readily found from classic diffraction theory to provide a field strength prediction at the receiver. The problem is whether a real mountain ridge can be accurately modeled as a knife-edge. Clearly, no mountain ridge is really a knife-edge. Other methods to more accurately represent the mountain ridge have been used. In each case where a new model of the obstacle was employed, the physical principles governing the effect of the "model" obstacle on the radio waves were known.

The important aspect of physical propagation models, and their primary distinction from empirical models, is that they attempt to predict the field strength at a precise point in space by considering the specific propagation environment circumstances involved. For this reason, they can be regarded as site-specific models. Given a particular transmitter and receiver location, and the propagation environment, a site-specific physical model will provide a tailor-made prediction of the field strength at that point and, as will be shown, other channel response characteristics. Site-specific physical propagation modeling is the approach used here to explore coverage prediction for digital mobile radio systems.

Traditional single path models Commonly used propagation models attempt to predict the signal strength at the receiver by calculating the path loss for a single radio propagation path from the transmitter via a great circle route to the receiver. Models such as TIREM and Longley-Rice are examples of physical models that predict signal strength using a single propagation path. (Footnote: Strictly speaking, TIREM and Longley-Rice are not pure physical models, since measurement results have been used to establish certain parameters in each model.)

Even using the assumption that signal energy arrives at the receiver via a single path only, useful results can still be obtained. Figure 3 on page 41 shows a map of predicted received power levels for a five-transmitter system using the TIREM model. With receiver signal power predicted, and knowing the system noise, digital modulation type and data rate, it is straightforward to display maps of bit error rate (BER) as shown in Figure 4 on page 42. By taking into account relative propagation path length delays from various transmitters, and their relative signal strengths, maps of simulcast delay spread can also be readily created as shown in Figure 5 on page 46. Such maps are especially useful for digital paging systems where time delay and frequency offsets can be assigned to each transmitter to re-locate and control the interference areas. Prediction tools, such as EDX SignalPro software, that provide this capability, allow the system designer to quickly evaluate many different offset configurations from a notebook or desktop computer without making time-consuming and expensive field measurements to interactively assess and adjust these parameters.

Although single path prediction methods are a useful starting point, for modern digital systems the answers can sometimes be inadequate or even misleading as will be shown in the concluding part of this article series.

References Anderson, H.R. "A Ray-tracing Propagation Model for Digital Broadcast Systems in Urban Areas," IEEE Transactions on Broadcasting, Sept. 1993. Anderson, H.R. "Site-specific BER Analysis in Frequency-selective Channels Using a Ray-tracing Propagation Model," Proceedings of the 1994 Globecom Conference, San Francisco, Dec. 1994. Balanis, C.A. Advanced Engineering Electromagnetics. John Wiley, New York, NY, 1989. Code of Federal Regulations Title 47, FCC Rules, Part 73.313, U.S. Government Printing Office. Hata, M. "Empirical Formula for Propagation Loss in Land Mobile Radio Services", IEEE Transactions on Vehicular Technology, Sept. 1981. Jakes, W.C. Microwave Mobile Communications. IEEE Press, Piscataway, NJ, 1994 (re-published). Okumura, Y. et al. "Field Strength and its Variability in VHF and UHF Land-mobile Radio-service," Rev. Elec. Commun. Lab., Sept.-Oct. 1968. VHF and UHF propagation curves for the frequency range 30 MHz and 1000 MHz. ITU-R, Recommendation 370-6, 1994 PN Series Volume, Propagation in Non-Ionizing Media, 1994.

Tags: Coverage/Interference System Design

Most Recent


  • How AT&T won DFW Airport's $10 million private 5G business
    According to Mike Youngs, it all started with the bathrooms at Dallas Fort Worth (DFW) International Airport. Youngs, the airport’s VP for IT, wanted to use wireless technology to reduce crowding in restroom lines during the COVID-19 pandemic. His team installed sensors and lights above stalls and monitors outside restrooms to let people know when […]
  • Russia's war in Ukraine shows cyberattacks can be war crimes
    Russia’s cyberattacks against Ukrainian civilian and critical infrastructure has shown what it looks like when cyberattacks are part of warfare. What remains to be seen is whether the world will treat them as war crimes. “For too long, the world has been considering cyber terrorism as something unrealistic, too sci-fi-ish, and cyber weapons as not […]
  • FCC grants 700 MHz Band 14 license renewal to FirstNet Authority
    An FCC bureau yesterday renewed the FirstNet Authority’s spectrum license into at least 2027, allowing the nationwide public-safety broadband network (NPSBN) to continue operating over the 700 MHz Band 14 airwaves—a key component of the FirstNet Authority’s 25-year agreement with contractor AT&T. Approved by the FCC Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau (PSHSB), the license […]
  • How vehicle insurance and autonomy intertwined
    In early 2023 Oxbotica claimed at an event, which was held at Lloyd’s of London about the Future of Autonomy that insurance and autonomy are intertwined. At the event, Sam Tiltman, sharing economy and mobility leader for the UK & Ireland at Marsh, claimed that the combined impact of Mobility-as-a-Service (MaaS), electric vehicles and automation is huge. […]

Leave a comment Cancel reply

To leave a comment login with your Urgent Comms account:

Log in with your Urgent Comms account

Or alternatively provide your name, email address below:

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Related Content

  • Coverage prediction for digital mobile systems (Part 1)
  • Private wireless networks in the US start going public
  • IoT connectivity spending climbs as COVID-19 cases decline
  • The battle over connected cars drags on

Commentary


Updated: How ‘sidelink’ peer-to-peer communications can enhance public-safety operations

  • 1
27th February 2023

NG911 needed to secure our communities and nation

24th February 2023

How 5G is making cities safer, smarter, and more efficient

26th January 2023
view all

Events


UC Ezines


IWCE 2019 Wrap Up

13th May 2019
view all

Twitter


UrgentComm

How AT&T won DFW Airport’s $10 million private 5G business dlvr.it/Spj4Pt

27th May 2023
UrgentComm

Russia’s war in Ukraine shows cyberattacks can be war crimes dlvr.it/Spj3c2

27th May 2023
UrgentComm

FCC grants 700 MHz Band 14 license renewal to FirstNet Authority dlvr.it/Spj2Ny

27th May 2023
UrgentComm

Broadband for Critical Communications Everywhere Providing Connectivity When Seconds Count dlvr.it/Sph602

26th May 2023
UrgentComm

How vehicle insurance and autonomy intertwined dlvr.it/SpglBb

26th May 2023
UrgentComm

World’s least-expensive self-driving vehicle revealed dlvr.it/Spgc88

26th May 2023
UrgentComm

Voice calling is finally making its way onto 5G dlvr.it/SpdtYW

26th May 2023
UrgentComm

With many cities facing a fiscal cliff as ARPA funding ends, debt ceiling debate continues on Capitol Hill dlvr.it/Spdsnq

26th May 2023

Newsletter

Sign up for UrgentComm’s newsletters to receive regular news and information updates about Communications and Technology.

Expert Commentary

Learn from experts about the latest technology in automation, machine-learning, big data and cybersecurity.

Business Media

Find the latest videos and media from the market leaders.

Media Kit and Advertising

Want to reach our digital and print audiences? Learn more here.

DISCOVER MORE FROM INFORMA TECH

  • American City & County
  • IWCE
  • Light Reading
  • IOT World Today
  • Mission Critical Technologies
  • TU-Auto

WORKING WITH US

  • About Us
  • Contact Us
  • Events
  • Careers

FOLLOW Urgent Comms ON SOCIAL

  • Privacy
  • CCPA: “Do Not Sell My Data”
  • Cookie Policy
  • Terms
Copyright © 2023 Informa PLC. Informa PLC is registered in England and Wales with company number 8860726 whose registered and Head office is 5 Howick Place, London, SW1P 1WG.