https://urgentcomm.com/wp-content/themes/ucm_child/assets/images/logo/footer-logo.png
  • Home
  • News
  • Multimedia
    • Back
    • Multimedia
    • Video
    • Podcasts
    • Galleries
  • Commentary
    • Back
    • Commentary
    • Urgent Matters
    • View From The Top
    • All Things IWCE
    • Legal Matters
  • Resources
    • Back
    • Resources
    • Events
    • 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
    • Cookies Policy
  • Related Sites
    • Back
    • American City & County
    • IWCE
    • Light Reading
    • IOT World Today
    • Mission Critical Technologies
    • Microwave/RF
    • T&D World
    • 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
    • Galleries
  • Commentary
    • Back
    • All Things IWCE
    • Urgent Matters
    • View From The Top
    • Legal Matters
  • Resources
    • Back
    • Events
    • Webinars
    • White Papers
    • Reprints & Reuse
    • UC eZines
  • IWCE
    • Back
    • Conference
    • Special Events
    • Exhibitor Listings
    • Floor Plan
    • Exhibiting Information
    • Register for IWCE
  • About Us
    • Back
    • About Us
    • Contact Us
    • Advertise
    • Terms of Service
    • Privacy Statement
    • Cookies Policy
  • Related Sites
    • Back
    • American City & County
    • IWCE
    • Light Reading
    • IOT World Today
    • Mission Critical Technologies
    • Microwave/RF
    • T&D World
    • 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

Related


  • The rapid growth in mobile communications systems over the past several years has lead to increasing use of digital modulation techniques to transmit
  • Hytera Communications, Motorola Solutions fail to reach royalty agreement
    Attorneys for Hytera Communications and Motorola Solutions acknowledged last week that they have not reached a royalty agreement through negotiation, so a federal judge likely must determine the type of royalty payments China-based Hytera Communications will make to Motorola Solutions when selling certain DMR products. Judge Charles Norgle of the United States District Court for […]
  • Five 5G takeaways from Samsung's new phones
    Samsung on Thursday took the wraps off its new Galaxy S21 flagship phones. The gadgets are important because Samsung is the world’s largest maker of smartphones and has been the leading vendor for 5G devices. Plus, the Galaxy S-line of phones is Samsung’s premier offering. Samsung’s latest phones feature all kinds of fancy technologies and functions – OLED screens, […]
  • Businesses struggle with cloud availability as attackers take aim
    The majority of organizations have separate tools for networking and security, researchers report in a new survey on cloud and networking challenges. Their findings emerge as US government officials warn businesses of successful attacks on corporate cloud services. Barracuda Networks today published a survey conducted by Censuswide, which polled more than 800 IT decision makers […]

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

  • Florida county announces successful test of Motorola Solutions' cloud-based P25 core technology
  • LMR licensing activity again dips to new all-time lows in 2020
  • Healthcare organizations bear the brunt of cyberattacks amid pandemic
  • On the road with in-vehicle satellite navigation systems

Commentary


Public safety needs a better way to triage emergency calls

13th January 2021

In challenging year, working with public safety to move FirstNet forward

30th December 2020

Communications solutions must evolve quickly to meet needs of a changing world

31st October 2020
view all

Events


UC Ezines


IWCE 2019 Wrap Up

13th May 2019
view all

Twitter


UrgentComm

RT @IWCEexpo: 📆 Mark Your Calendars: IWCE will be returning to Las Vegas this September and registration is slated to open in April 📆 Wa…

15th January 2021
UrgentComm

RT @IWCEexpo: ⚡FLASH SALE: Don't miss this exclusive offer! Passes to #IBFVirtual are now 50% off with code TWITTER50. Take advantage of th…

6th November 2020
UrgentComm

Get ready for part 2 of "Ensuring Public Safety Emergency Communications" next week! @PCTEL_inc will explore… twitter.com/i/web/status/1…

3rd November 2020
UrgentComm

Over the past few months, we’ve seen the world transform, and it's clear that cities will be affected in the long-t… twitter.com/i/web/status/1…

27th October 2020
UrgentComm

Florida state & local agencies subscribing to the Statewide Law Enforcement Radio System (SLERS) will be able to co… twitter.com/i/web/status/1…

26th October 2020
UrgentComm

Tune in to @slacorp CEO Josh Lober as he explains how the company has fully integrated its #PTT application to work… twitter.com/i/web/status/1…

26th October 2020
UrgentComm

.@SierraWireless announced the commercial availability of the AirLink MG90 platform, which they tout as the first m… twitter.com/i/web/status/1…

26th October 2020
UrgentComm

Attorneys for #Hytera and #MotorolaSolutions this week submitted final written arguments, apparently clearing a pat… twitter.com/i/web/status/1…

22nd October 2020

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
  • Microwave/RF
  • T&D World
  • TU-Auto

WORKING WITH US

  • About Us
  • Contact Us
  • Events
  • Careers

FOLLOW Urgent Comms ON SOCIAL

  • Privacy
  • CCPA: “Do Not Sell My Data”
  • Cookies Policy
  • Terms
Copyright © 2021 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.
This website uses cookies, including third party ones, to allow for analysis of how people use our website in order to improve your experience and our services. By continuing to use our website, you agree to the use of such cookies. Click here for more information on our Cookie Policy and Privacy Policy.
X