M. Suneetha Rani et al. / IJAIR ISSN: 2278-7844

© 2012 IJAIR. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED 221

Comparison of Standard Propagation Model

(SPM) and Stanford University Interim (SUI)

Radio Propagation Models

for Long Term Evolution (LTE) M.Suneetha Rani

#1 , Subrahmanyam VVRK Behara

*2 , K.Suresh

#3

#Department of ECE, Chaitanya Engineering College

Visakhapatnam, A.P. INDIA 1suneethachintala@yahoo.com

3surech_kutcherlapati@yahoo.co.in

*Department of ECE, BITS, Visakhapatnam, A.P. INDIA

2subrahmanyambehara@gmail.com

Abstract

This paper deals with comparison of SPM

(Standard propagation models) used in many planning

tools such as Atoll, Asset and Planet for several wireless

telecommunication standards and SUI (Stanford

University Interim) Radio Propagation Model

compared with many conventional models like COST

231 model, HATA, Okumura model and Ericsson 9999

model for the upcoming 4th Generation mobile network

known as LTE. Radio Propagation model is intended

for knowing cell radius which is a very important factor

during planning phase of network deployment. Cell

radius directly depends on Path loss generated by

different propagation scenarios which are modeled

using different Propagation models. Present work

makes a comparative analysis through design of

mathematical modeling of all the above mentioned

propagation models using Matlab. Frequency bands

considered are for Asia taken as 1800MHZ and

2100MHz. SPM has given the least Path loss for

different areas such as URBAN,SUBURBAN,RURAL

compared with all other propagation Models.

Keywords: Long Term Evolution, Standard Propagation

Model, Stanford University Interim Radio Propagation

Model

I INTRODUCTION

Long Term Evolution, LTE is a standard

for wireless communication of high-speed data for

mobile phones and data terminals. It is based on

the GSM/EDGE and UMTS/HSPA network

technologies, increasing the capacity and speed using

a different radio interface together with core network

improvements. LTE technology is a third option

worth considering two technology options 3G and

WiMAX to support mobile broadband., as it may

provide operators with better performance at a lower

cost than either 3G or WiMAX. LTE is a superior

technology that offers much higher data throughput

and lower latency than 3G. Moreover, the promise of

a well-developed 3G/LTE ecosystem in the US and

Europe may result in more new devices that support

both, opening opportunities for Indian operators to

explore new business models and potentially new

sources. LTE is based on OFDMA (Orthogonal

Frequency Division Multiple Access) to be able to

reach even higher data rates and data volumes. LTE

offers many advantages over competing technologies.

However, in the Indian context there are several

questions that need to be answered before LTE can

become a credible alternative to 3G and WiMAX [3].

1.1 Spectrum availability

The LTE spectrum in India stills lack

clarity. Operators may consider deployment in BWA

(20 MHz of unpaired spectrum in 2.3 GHz) and 3G

(paired spectrum of 2x5 MHz in 2.1 GHz) spectrum

bands. In addition, approximately 120 MHz of

spectrum in the 700 MHz band—an effective and

cost efficient frequency band for LTE deployment—

could be used for LTE in the future.

LTE is developed for a number of

frequency bands, ranging from 800 MHz up to 3.5

GHz. The available bandwidths are also flexible

starting with 1.4 MHz up to 20 MHz. LTE is

developed to support both the time division duplex

technology (TDD) as well as frequency division

duplex (FDD).

M. Suneetha Rani et al. / IJAIR ISSN: 2278-7844

© 2012 IJAIR. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED 222

1.2 Current voice congestion

Though LTE has a lot of advantages as a

mobile broadband technology, any voice solution for

it will take a few years or more to materialize. LTE

will not serve the purpose of operators looking at 3G

spectrum options to ease congestion on their current

voice networks. These operators would have to incur

incremental capital expenditures in 2G base stations

to use 3G spectrum for LTE deployment.

1.3 Technical maturity

Many operators worldwide have already

committed to LTE and are actively preparing for

deployments in the near future. There is an

expectation that most Western operators on 3G will

eventually move to LTE. However, there has been

only limited commercial deployment of LTE to date.

Hence, Indian operators need to be careful when

considering their LTE deployment time line, given

that LTE is still a relatively new technology.

1.4 The motivation for LTE

The need to ensure the continuity of

competitiveness of the 3G system for the future,

user demand for higher data rates and quality of

service are the main motivation for LTE. The

frequency bands used in various global regions are

presented in the Table 1.1

Table 1.1

Region Frequency Bands

North America 700/800 and

1700/1900 MHz

Europe 800, 900, 1800, 2600 MHz

Asia 1800 and 2600 MHz in Asia

Australia 1800 MHz

The LTE standard can be used with many

different frequency bands. As a result, phones from

one country may not work in other countries. Users

will need a multi-band capable phone for roaming

internationally. The selection of a suitable radio

propagation model for LTE is of great importance. A

radio propagation model describes the behavior of the

signal while it is transmitted from the transmitter

towards the receiver. It gives a relation between the

distance of transmitter and receiver and the path loss.

Path loss depends on the condition of environment

(urban, suburban, rural, dense urban, open, etc.)

operating frequency, atmospheric conditions,

indoor/outdoor and the distance between the

transmitter and receiver.

In this paper a comparison is made between

SUI and SPM models in different terrains to find out

the model having least path loss in a particular terrain

in coverage point of view.

II RADIO PROPAGATION MODELS

Radio planning tools have interfaces for

external propagation prediction models, and a large

number of different propagation models are

commercially available. Radio planning tools also

have internal propagation models.

The internal models that are used in cellular

network planning are typically based on the

Okumura-Hata (O-H) formulas. For a given

frequency band, the Okumura-Hata formulas are

simple functions of distance, but the effect of the

digital map is included by adding antenna height,

diffraction and clutter corrections into the basic

Okumura-Hata loss. The exact implementation of the

antenna height, diffraction and clutter corrections as

well as other possible adjustments varies from one

planning tool to another.

To find an accurate model for propagation

losses is a leading issue when planning a mobile

radio network. Two strategies for predicting

propagation losses are in use these days: one is to

derive an empirical propagation model from

measurement data and the other is to use a

deterministic propagation model.

2.1 Standard Propagation Model

Propagation models in Asset and Atoll are

based on Okumura-Hata models which support

frequencies higher than 1500 MHz. These models in

Asset and Atoll are termed as standard propagation

models. Standard Propagation Model (SPM) is based

on empirical formulas and a set of parameters are set

to their default values[1]. However, they can be

adjusted to tune the propagation model according to

actual propagation conditions.

SPM is based on the following formula[1]

𝐿𝑚𝑜𝑑𝑒𝑙 = 𝐾1 + 𝐾2 𝑙𝑜𝑔 𝑑 + 𝐾3 𝑙𝑜𝑔 𝐻𝑇𝑥𝑒𝑓𝑓 ) +

𝐾4 ∗𝐷𝑖𝑓𝑓𝑟𝑎𝑐𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝑙𝑜𝑠𝑠+𝐾5 (𝑙𝑜𝑔𝑑∗ 𝑙𝑜𝑔 𝐻𝑇𝑥𝑒𝑓𝑓 + 𝐾6 𝐻𝑅𝑥𝑒𝑓𝑓 +𝐾𝑐𝑙𝑢𝑡𝑡𝑒𝑟 𝑓𝑐𝑙𝑢𝑡𝑡𝑒𝑟 -------------(1)

For hilly terrain, the correction path loss

when transmitter and receiver are in LOS is

given by

𝐿𝐿𝑂𝑆 = 𝐾1𝑙𝑜𝑠 + 𝐾2𝑙𝑜𝑠 𝑙𝑜𝑔 𝑑 + 𝐾3 𝑙𝑜𝑔 𝐻𝑇𝑥𝑒𝑓𝑓 +

𝐾5 𝑙𝑜𝑔 𝐻𝑇𝑥𝑒𝑓𝑓 𝑙𝑜𝑔 𝑑 + 𝐾6 𝐻𝑅𝑥 +

𝐾𝑐𝑙𝑢𝑡𝑡𝑒𝑟 𝑓 𝑐𝑙𝑢𝑡𝑡𝑒𝑟 + 𝐾𝑕𝑖𝑙𝑙 𝑙𝑜𝑠 -------------(2)

When transmitter and receiver are not in

line of sight NLOS, the path loss formula is

𝐿𝑁𝐿𝑂𝑆 = 𝐾1𝑁𝐿𝑂𝑆 + 𝐾2 𝑁𝐿𝑂𝑆 𝑙𝑜𝑔 𝑑 +

𝐾3 𝑙𝑜𝑔 𝐻𝑇𝑥𝑒𝑓𝑓 + 𝐾4 ∗ 𝑑𝑖𝑓𝑓𝑟𝑎𝑐𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 +

𝐾5 𝑙𝑜𝑔 𝐻𝑇𝑥𝑒𝑓𝑓 𝑙𝑜𝑔 𝑑 + 𝐾6 ∗ 𝐻𝑅𝑥 +

𝐾𝑐𝑙𝑢𝑡𝑡𝑒𝑟 ∗ 𝑓𝑐𝑙𝑢𝑡𝑡𝑒𝑟 -------------(3)

M. Suneetha Rani et al. / IJAIR ISSN: 2278-7844

© 2012 IJAIR. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED 223

Where,

𝐾1 = frequency constant 𝑑𝐵 . 𝐾2 = Distance attenuation constant . d =distance between the receiver and transmitter (m).

𝐾3 ,𝐾4 = Correction coefficient of height of mobile

station antenna

Diffractiion loss: loss due to diffraction over an

obstructed path (dB).

𝐾5 ,𝐾6 = Correction coefficient of height of base

station antenna.

𝐾𝑐𝑙𝑢𝑡𝑡𝑒𝑟 = correction coefficient of clutter

attenuation, the signal strength of a given

point is modified according to the clutter class at

this point and is irrelevant to the

clutter class in the transmission path. All losses in

the transmission path are included in

the median loss.

hm , hb = effective height of antenna in mobile

station and base station respectively,

unit: m

In radio transmissions, the value of K varies

according to terrains, features and environment of

cities.

𝐻𝑅𝑥𝑒𝑓𝑓 = 𝑒𝑓𝑓𝑒𝑐𝑡𝑖𝑣𝑒 𝑚𝑜𝑏𝑖𝑙𝑒 𝑎𝑛𝑡𝑒𝑛𝑛𝑎 𝑕𝑒𝑖𝑔𝑕𝑡 (𝑚).

f(clutter)= average of weighted losses due to clutter.

Table 2.1 K-Parameters for a Metropolitan City in India(Asia)

2.2 Stanford University Interim (SUI) Model

Stanford University Interim (SUI) model is

developed for IEEE 802.16 by Stanford

University[2]. It is used for frequencies above

1900MHz. In this propagation model, three different

types of terrains or areas are considered(Table 2.2).

These are called as terrain A,B and C. Terrain A

represents an area with highest path loss; it can be a

very dense populated region while terrain B

represents an area with moderate path loss, a

suburban environment. Terrain C has the least path

loss which describes a rural or flat area.

Table 2.2: Different Terrains and their parameters

Parameters Terrain A Terrain B Terrain C

a 4.6 4 3.6

b (1/m) 0.0075 0.0065 0.005

c (m) 12.6 17.1 20

The path loss in SUI model can be described as

PL= A+ 10 γ log (𝑑/𝑑𝑜) +𝑋𝑓 + 𝑋𝑕 + 𝑆---------(4)

where

PL represents Path Loss in dBs, d is the distance

between the transmitte and receiver, 𝑑𝑜 is the

reference distance (Here its value is 100), 𝑋𝑓 is the

frequency correction factor, 𝑋𝑕 is the Correction

factor for Base station height, S is shadowing and γ is

the path loss component and it is described as

γ = a − bhb +c

hb -------------(5)

Where hb is the height of the base station and a, b and

c represent the terrain for which the values are

selected from the above table.

A = 20 log4πdo

λ -------------(6)

Where A is the free space path loss while do is the

distance between Tx and Rx and λ is the wavelength,

The correction factor for frequency and base station

height are as follows:

∆Xf =6 log f

2000 , ∆X h= ― 10.8 log

hr

2000--(7) & (8)

Where f is the frequency in MHz, and hr is the height

of the receiver antenna. This expression is used for

terrain type A and B. For terrain C, the below

expression is used.

∆Xh= - 20 log (hr

2000),

S = 0.65(log f)2 − 1.3 log f + α --------(9) & (10)

Here α dB for rural and suburban

environments(Terrain A & B) and 6.6 dB for urban

environment (Terrain C).

2.3 Free Space Loss Model

In telecommunication, free-space path loss

(FSPL) is the loss in signal strength of an

electromagnetic wave that would result from a line-

of-sight path through free space (usually air), with no

obstacles nearby to cause reflection or diffraction. It

does not include factors such as the gain of the

antennas used at the transmitter and receiver, nor any

loss associated with hardware imperfections. A

discussion of these losses may be found in the article

on link budget.

Free-space path loss formula

Free-space path loss is proportional to the

square of the distance between the transmitter and

receiver, and also proportional to the square of the

frequency of the radio signal.

The basic equation is (𝐹𝑆𝑃𝐿) = 4𝜋𝜆/𝑑2 -----(11)

FSPL(dB)= 32.44+ 20 log 10(d) + 20 log10(f) --(12)

K

Values

Dense

Urban Urban

Sub-

urban Rural

High

ways

K1 16.375 17.575 17.675 5.275 26.625

K2 48 45.9 44.9 48 40.1

K3 5.83 5.83 5.83 5.83 5.83

K4 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8

K5 -6.55 -6.55 -6.55 -6.55 -6.55

K6 0 0 0 0 0

Kclutter 1 1 1 1 1

M. Suneetha Rani et al. / IJAIR ISSN: 2278-7844

© 2012 IJAIR. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED 224

Where ‗f‘ is the signal frequency (in megahertz), ‗d‘

is the distance from the transmitter (in km).

This equation is only accurate in the far field where

spherical spreading can be assumed. It does not hold

good when receiver is close to the transmitter.

2.4 Cost – 231 Hata Model

The COST-Hata-Model is the most often

cited of the COST 231 models[5]. Also called the

Hata Model PCS Extension, it is a radio propagation

model that extends the Hata Model (which in turn is

based on the Okumura Model) to cover a more

elaborated range of frequencies. COST is a European

Union Forum for cooperative scientific research

which has developed this model accordingly to

various experiments and researches.

Coverage

Frequency: 150 MHz to 2000 MHz

Mobile Station Antenna Height: 1 up to 10m

Base station Antenna Height: 30m to 200m

Link Distance: 1 up to 30 km

Mathematical Formulation:

The COST-Hata-Model is formulated as,

Path Loss(L)= 46.3 + 33.9 log10(f) – 13.82 log10(hb)

–a(hm) + (44.9 - 6.55 log(hb))log10(d) + C [dB]--(13)

For suburban or rural environments:

Where,

L = Median path loss. Unit: Decibel (dB)

f = Frequency of Transmission. (MHz)

hb = Base Station Antenna effective height.Meter (m)

d = Link distance. (km)

hm = Mobile Station Antenna effective height (m)

a(hm) = Mobile station Antenna height correction

factor as described in the Hata model for

Urban Areas.

The European Co-operative for Scientific

and Technical research (EUROCOST) formed the

COST-231 working committee to develop an

extended version of the Hata model. COST-231

proposed the following formula to extend Hata's

model to 2 GHz. The parameter C is defined as 0 dB

for suburban or open environments and 3 dB for

urban environments. The parameter a(hm) is defined

for various propagation environments. Path loss

prediction could be more accurate but models are not

complex and fast calculations are possible precision

greatly depends on the city structure

2.5 COST-231 Walfisch-Ikegami Model

COST-231 Walfisch-Ikegami model is an extension

of COST Hata model. It can be used for frequencies

above 2000 MHz.

Line of Site(LOS) path loss is given by following

formula

PL=42.64+26log(d)+20 log (f) -------------(14)

For NLOS condition, the path loss is given by

PL=Lo+Lrts+Lmsd -------------(15)

where

Lo is the attenuation in free space and is described as:

Lo=32.45+20 log(d)+20log(f) ---------------(16)

Lrts represents diffraction from rooftop to street and is

defined as: Lrts= −16.9 − 10 log w + 10 log f + 20 log hb − hm + Lori --------(17)

Here Lori is a function of the orientation of the

antenna relative to the street a (in degrees) and is

defined as:

Lori= -10+0.354 a for 0<a<35 -------------(18)

Lmsd represents diffraction loss due to multiple

obstacles and is specified as

a2 + b2 = Lmsd = Lbsd + Ka + kd log d +Kf log f − 9 log sb -------------(19)

Where Lbsd = -18 log (1+ht-hb) for ht>hb

= 54+0.8 (ht-hb)2 d for ht<hb

Ka=54 for ht>hb and 54+0.8(ht-hb) for ht<hb and

d>0.5 km.

Kd=18 + 15 ht− hb

hb for ht>hb

Kd=18 for ht<hb

Kf=−4 + k f

924

Here, K=0.7 for suburban centers and 1.5 for

metropolitan centers.

2.6 Ericsson 9999 Model

This model is the extension of Hata model.

Hata model is used for frequencies upto 1900 MHz.

In this ericsson model the parameters are adjusted

according to the given scenario.

The pathloss is

𝑃𝐿 = ao log d + a1 log d + a2 log hb + a3log(hb )logd 3.2(log11.752∗hr+g(f) Where g(f) = 44.49 log(f)-4.78 ((log(f))^2 -------(20)

The values of ao , a1, a2 and a3 are constant but

they can be changed according to the scenario

M. Suneetha Rani et al. / IJAIR ISSN: 2278-7844

© 2012 IJAIR. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED 225

(environment). The defaults values given by the

Ericsson model are shown in Table 2.3

Table 2.3 Values of 𝐚𝐨, 𝐚𝟏,𝐚𝟐 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐚𝟑

Area/paramete

rs ao a1 a2 a3

urban 36.2 30.2 1

2

0.

1

suburban 43.2

0

68.9

3

1

2

0.

1

rural 45.9

5

100.

6

1

2

0.

1

III LITERATURE SURVEY

LTE is well positioned to meet the

requirements of next-generation mobile networks for

existing 3GPP operators. It will enable operators to

offer high performance, mass market mobile

broadband services, through a combination of high

bit-rates and system throughput, in both the uplink

and downlink and with low latency [3]. A

comprehensive set of propagation measurements

taken at 3.5 GHz in Cambridge, UK is used to

validate the applicability of the three models

mentioned previously for rural, suburban and urban

environments. The results show that in general the

SUI and the COST-231 Hata model over-predict the

path loss in all environments. The ECC-33 model

shows the best results, especially in urban

environments [2]. They comparison of propagation

models is also being done in [10] & [11].

IV SPM INVESTIGATION METHODOLOGY

Our research question is to find out the radio

propagation model which will give us the least path

loss in a particular terrain. The main problem is that

LTE is using 1900 MHz and 2100 MHz frequency

bands in different regions of the world. In some

regions, frequencies of 700 MHz, 1800 MHz and

2600 MHz are also considered for LTE. For these

frequency bands, many different radio propagation

models are available that can be used in different

terrains like urban, dense urban, suburban, rural etc.

We will make a comparison between different radio

propagation models and find out the model that is

best suitable in a particular terrain. The comparison is

made on the basis of path loss, antenna height and

transmission frequency.

Table 4.1 Parameters used in simulation

S.No Parameter Value(Units)

1 Operating Frequencies(LTE Asia) 1900 & 2100 MHz

2 Distance of operation 0-30 KM

3 Base Station Heights (Urban,Sub-Urban & Rural) 30 m

4 End User Equipment Height(Mobile station Height) 3m

5 NLOS Parameters Diffraction loss,clutter

6 LOS Parameters K4=0

V RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

In our simulation, two different operating

frequencies 1900 MHz & 2100 MHz are used. The

average building height is fixed to 15 m while the

building to building distance is 50 m and street width

is 25 m. All the remaining parameters used in our

simulations are described in Table 5.1. Almost all the

propagation models are available to be used both in

LOS & NLOS environments. In our simulations, to

make the scenario more practical, NLOS is used in

urban, suburban & rural conditions. But LOS

condition is being considered for rural area in COST

231 W-I model because it did not provide any

specific parameters for rural area [11].

The empirical formulas of path loss

calculation as described in the earlier section are used

and the path loss is plotted against the distance for

different frequencies & different BS heights. Figure 2

& Figure 3 shows the path loss for SUI model for

1900 MHz & 2100 MHz respectively. Similarly,

Figure 4 & Figure 5 are for Okumura model for 1900

MHz & 2100 MHz respectively. In Figure 6, the path

loss for COST 231 Hata model for 1900 MHz is

shown. In Figure 7 & Figure 8, path loss for COST

Walfisch-Ikegami Model is depicted for the same two

frequencies.

Observations:

1. SPM model has the lowest path loss in all

types of environments for 2100 MHz. shown

in Fig.1,Fig.3,Fig.5.

2. SPM model has the lowest path loss in all

types of environments for 1900 MHz.

shown in Fig.2,Fig.4 & Fig.6

3. SUI model has a consistent path loss in all

types of environments but higher

when compared with SPM

M. Suneetha Rani et al. / IJAIR ISSN: 2278-7844

© 2012 IJAIR. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED 226

All other models which are not including terrain

specifications such as K- parameters are having

higher path loss prediction than SPM model.

Table 5.2 Comparison of various RPMs for different areas*

Loss/Areas Frequency

MHz

URBAN SUBURBAN RURAL

Free Space

Loss

2100 98.895-128.4368 98.8944 - 128.4368 98.8944 -128.4368

1900 98.0251-27.5675 98.0251-27.5675 98.0251-27.5675

COST-231

HATA

2100 138.8196- 190.8510 133.7298 -185.7611 133.7298 -185.7611

1900 137.34-189.3775 132.336-184.3672 132.336-184.3672

COST-231 W I 2100 130.9086 - 297.8233 122.1332 -178.2638 109.0444 - 147.4495

1900 128.5657-95.4804 120.9496-77.0802 108.175-146.5802

ERICSSON

9999

2100 145.4490 -190.2762 131.6178 -233.6540 134.3678 -283.1844

1900 143- 188.5502 130.0996-32.1357 132.85-281.6662

S U I 2100 127.2581 - 188.0663 101.61 - 166.6540 124.8581 - 185.6663

1900 126.128-186.9362 100.331-164.9555 123.728-184.5362

S P M 2100 76.0901 -193.1187 45.1728 - 97.2042 52.773 – 138.926

1900 75.220 - 192.2494 44.3035-96.3348 51.903-138.056

* Range of values taken for 0(Minimum)-30(Maximum)Km

Fig.1 Urban-2100MHz

Fig.3 Suburban-2100MHz

Fig.2 Urban-1900MHz

Fig.4 Suburban-2100MHz

M. Suneetha Rani et al. / IJAIR ISSN: 2278-7844

© 2012 IJAIR. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED 227

Fig.5 Rural-2100MHz

Fig.6 Rural-1900MHz

VI CONCLUSION

Standard propagation model has

considerably good in terms of path loss in all the

terrains such as Urban, Suburban and Rural for both

1900 and 2100 MHz that can be used for LTE in

asia.SPM has shown the superior performance over

all other radio propagation models. Current planning

tools which are using the SPM as the propagation

model can be used for planning of the LTE network

deployment. Experimental procedures need to be

further made to this simulation and results are to be

adopted for planning of LTE in Asia.. Current

simulation is based on a metropolitan city in India

and Path loss is calculated on a generalized basis.

Stringent Experimental procedures are to be adopted

for calculating K-Values for location of interest and

to be incorporated for SPM for obtaining Path Loss.

REFERENCES

[1] Hormoz Parsian, ―Comparison of Asset and Atoll

Cellular Planning Tools for LTE Network Planning‖, AALTO UNIVERSITY-2012

[2] Josip Milanovic, Rimac-Drlje S, Bejuk K, ―Comparison

of propagation model accuracy for WiMAX on 3.5GHz,‖ 14th IEEE International conference on

electronic circuits and systems, Morocco, pp. 111-114.

2007. [3] LTE an Introduction, White paper, Ericsson AB, 2009.

[4] V.S. Abhayawardhana, I.J. Wassel, D. Crosby, M.P.

Sellers, M.G. Brown, “Comparison of empirical propagation path loss models for fixed wireless access

systems,” 61th IEEE Technology Conference,

Stockholm, pp. 73-77, 2005. [5] Okumura, Y. a kol, ―Field Strength and its Variability

in VHF and UHF Land-Mobile Radio Service‖, Rev.

Elec. Comm. Lab, No.9-10, pp. 825 - 873, 1968. [6] Hata, M, ―Empirical Formula for Propagation Loss in

Land Mobile Radio Services‖, IEEE Trans. Vehicular

Technology, VT-29, pp. 317 - 325, 1980. [7] COST Action 231, ―Digital mobile radio towards future

generation systems, final report‖, tech. rep., European

Communities, EUR 18957, 1999. [8] Amarasinghe K.C., Peiris K.G.A.B., Thelisinghe

L.A.D.M.D., Warnakulasuriya G.M., and Samarasinghe

A.T.L.K ―‖, Fourth International Conference on Industrial and Information Systems, ICIIS 2009, 28 - 31

December 2009, Sri Lanka. [9] Simic I. lgor, Stanic I., and Zrnic B., ―Minimax LS

Algorithm for Automatic Propagation Model Tuning,‖

Proceeding of the 9th Telecommunications Forum (TELFOR 2001), Belgrade, Nov.2001.

[10] B. Ramakrishnan, R. S. Rajesh and R. S. Shaji ―An

Efficient Vehicular Communication Outside the City Environments‖, International Journal of Next

Generation Networks (IJNGN), volume 2, December

2010.

[11] M. Shahjahan, A. Q. Abdulla Hes-Shafi, ―Analysis of

Propagation Models for WiMAX at 3.5 GHz,‖ MS

thesis, Blekinge Institute of Technology, Karlskrona, Sweden, 2009.

[12] N. Shabbir, H. Kasihf, ―Radio Resource Management

in WiMAX,‖ MS thesis, Blekinge Institute of Technology, Karlskrona, Sweden, 2009.

[13] Khaled Elleithy and Varun Rao, ―Femto Cells: Current

Status and Future Directions‖ International Journal of Next Generation Networks (IJNGN), volume 3, March

2011.

[14] H. R. Anderson, ―Fixed Broadband Wireless System Design‖, John Wiley & Co., 2003.

[15] G. E. Athanasiadou, A. R. Nix, and J. P. McGeehan, ―A

microcellular ray-tracing propagation model and evaluation of its narrowband and wideband

predictions,‖ IEEE Journal on Selected Areas in

Communications, Wireless Communications series, vol. 18, pp. 322–335, March2000.

[16] Khaled Elleithy and Varun Rao, ―Femto Cells: Current

Status and Future Directions‖ International Journal of Next Generation Networks (IJNGN), volume 3, March

2011.

[17] V. Erceg, L. J. Greenstein, et al., ―An empirically based path loss model for wireless channels in suburban

environments,‖ IEEE Journal on Selected Areas of

Communications, vol. 17, pp. 1205–1211, July1999. [18] M. A. Alim, M. M. Rahman, M. M. Hossain, A. Al-

Nahid, ―Analysis of Large-Scale Propagation Models

for Mobile Communications in Urban Area‖, International Journal of Computer Science and

Information Security (IJCSIS), Vol. 7, No. 1, 2010.

M. Suneetha Rani et al. / IJAIR ISSN: 2278-7844

© 2012 IJAIR. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED 228

[19] F. D. Alotaibi and A. A. Ali, April 2008, ―Tuning of lee

path loss model based on recent RF measurements in 400 MHz conducted in Riyadh city, Saudi Arabia,‖ The

Arabian Journal for Science and Engineering, Vol 33,

no 1B, pp. 145–152.