28 GHz and 73 GHz Millimeter-Wave Indoor Propagation Measurements and Path Loss Models

This paper presents 28 GHz and 73 GHz millimeter- wave propagation measurements performed in a typical office environment using a 400 Megachip-per-second broadband sliding correlator channel sounder and highly directional steerable 15 dBi (30 degrees beamwidth) and 20 dBi (15 degrees beamwidth) horn antennas. Power delay profiles were acquired for 48 transmitter-receiver location combinations over distances ranging from 3.9 m to 45.9 m with maximum transmit powers of 24 dBm and 12.3 dBm at 28 GHz and 73 GHz, respectively. Directional and omnidirectional path loss models and RMS delay spread statistics are presented for line-of-sight and non-line-of-sight environments for both co- and cross-polarized antenna configurations. The LOS omnidirectional path loss exponents were 1.1 and 1.3 at 28 GHz and 73 GHz, and 2.7 and 3.2 in NLOS at 28 GHz and 73 GHz, respectively, for vertically-polarized antennas. The mean directional RMS delay spreads were 18.4 ns and 13.3 ns, with maximum values of 193 ns and 288 ns at 28 GHz and 73 GHz, respectively.Comment: 7 pages, 9 figures, 2015 IEEE International Conference on Communications (ICC), ICC Workshop

Investigation of Prediction Accuracy, Sensitivity, and Parameter Stability of Large-Scale Propagation Path Loss Models for 5G Wireless Communications

This paper compares three candidate large-scale propagation path loss models for use over the entire microwave and millimeter-wave (mmWave) radio spectrum: the alpha-beta-gamma (ABG) model, the close-in (CI) free space reference distance model, and the CI model with a frequency-weighted path loss exponent (CIF). Each of these models have been recently studied for use in standards bodies such as 3GPP, and for use in the design of fifth generation (5G) wireless systems in urban macrocell, urban microcell, and indoor office and shopping mall scenarios. Here we compare the accuracy and sensitivity of these models using measured data from 30 propagation measurement datasets from 2 GHz to 73 GHz over distances ranging from 4 m to 1238 m. A series of sensitivity analyses of the three models show that the physically-based two-parameter CI model and three-parameter CIF model offer computational simplicity, have very similar goodness of fit (i.e., the shadow fading standard deviation), exhibit more stable model parameter behavior across frequencies and distances, and yield smaller prediction error in sensitivity testing across distances and frequencies, when compared to the four-parameter ABG model. Results show the CI model with a 1 m close-in reference distance is suitable for outdoor environments, while the CIF model is more appropriate for indoor modeling. The CI and CIF models are easily implemented in existing 3GPP models by making a very subtle modification -- by replacing a floating non-physically based constant with a frequency-dependent constant that represents free space path loss in the first meter of propagation.Comment: Open access available at: http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/articleDetails.jsp?arnumber=743465

5G 3GPP-like Channel Models for Outdoor Urban Microcellular and Macrocellular Environments

For the development of new 5G systems to operate in bands up to 100 GHz, there is a need for accurate radio propagation models at these bands that currently are not addressed by existing channel models developed for bands below 6 GHz. This document presents a preliminary overview of 5G channel models for bands up to 100 GHz. These have been derived based on extensive measurement and ray tracing results across a multitude of frequencies from 6 GHz to 100 GHz, and this document describes an initial 3D channel model which includes: 1) typical deployment scenarios for urban microcells (UMi) and urban macrocells (UMa), and 2) a baseline model for incorporating path loss, shadow fading, line of sight probability, penetration and blockage models for the typical scenarios. Various processing methodologies such as clustering and antenna decoupling algorithms are also presented.Comment: To be published in 2016 IEEE 83rd Vehicular Technology Conference Spring (VTC 2016-Spring), Nanjing, China, May 201