stds-80220-ch-models: CHAN: Notes from 4/28/03 informal channel modeling meeting
Chanmodelers,
FYI: Qiang Gao, editor for the channel modeling sub-group, is on
vacation this week.
The attached informal background material may be useful to the
channel sub-group. The first is some brief notes I took at an
informal conference bridge meeting among several parties interested
in MBWA channel modeling, back in April. It's followed by an email
from Kevin Baum which has a pointer to the ETSI "TU" model information.
Glenn Golden
MBWA modeling correspondence group chair
Flarion Technologies, Inc.
303-402-1607
gdg at flarion dot com
==========================================================================
2003-04-28 telephone conference, re channel models for MBWA:
Attending:
Reza Arefi Arraycom <reza@arraycomm.com>
Paul Petrus " <petrus@arraycomm.com>
Todd Chauvin " <chauvin@arraycomm.com>
Mike Youssefmir " <mike@arraycomm.com>
Kevin Baum Motorola <kevin.baum@motorola.com>
Mark Cudak " <Mark.Cudak@motorola.com>
John Fan Flarion <j.fan@flarion.com>
Samir Kapoor " <s.kapoor@flarion.com>
Glenn Golden " <g.golden@flarion.com>
Summary of main points:
Adding channel models with richer delay spread:
ITU UTRA/3GPP models (proposed by Golden/Flarion at 802 March)
were designed with CDMA in mind. Kevin/Motorola would prefer to
see more channels in the MBWA ensemble with richer delay spread.
Their preference is GSM (COST 207-based) "TU" (Typical Urban) model,
with 12 rays. (There are 6- and 12-ray variants.) The 12-ray
version delay/power profile as follows:
Delay (us) Relative Power (dB)
0 -4
0.1 -3
0.3 0
0.5 -2.6
0.8 -3
1.1 -5
1.3 -7
1.7 -5
2.3 -6.5
3.1 -8.6
3.2 -11
5 -10
There were (unfielded) questions on applicability of these models
(which were based on 800 MHz carrier, GSM bandwidths) to 2 GHz and
wider bandwidths.
Glenn (Flarion) in agreement that model set should be expanded as
per Kevin's suggestion. If feasible, suggested these higher delay
spread models be substitutions for one or more of the ITU models,
so as to minimize model proliferation. However, this may not be
possible, some may have to be appended.
Other channel model sets to be considered:
Arraycom: "Harmonized" 3GPP/3GPP2 looks reasonable. Delay spreads
are relatively small.
MIMO vs. SISO:
Observation (Arraycom?): We should naturally have separate SISO and
MIMO models, but don't omit the capability to compare SISO and MIMO
performance meaningfully. Glenn asked what people thought about
defining a few common points in the model set for SISO/MIMO comparison
purposes. These common models would necessarily be drawn from the
(as yet undefined) MIMO set, but with the spatial dimension collapsed
for use in SISO simulation. No one seemed to object to this.
Other:
Rezi and Glenn both expressed caution about letting the set of
models become too large. It increases the simulation workload, and
potentially increases the ambiguity of quoted results.
==========================================================================
==========================================================================
Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2003 15:21:48 -0500
From: "Kevin Baum" <baum@labs.mot.com>
Subject: GSM TU model
All,
The Typical Urban (TU) model is one of the commonly used models for GSM
systems in the cellular and PCS bands.
It can be found (along with the Rural Area and Hilly Terrain models) in
an ETSI document that can be downloaded at:
http://pda.etsi.org/pda/home.asp?wki_id=4UeLNrumsN6AF6AevVRj
The TU power delay profile with 12 rays is:
Delay (us) Relative Power (dB)
0 -4
0.1 -3
0.3 0
0.5 -2.6
0.8 -3
1.1 -5
1.3 -7
1.7 -5
2.3 -6.5
3.1 -8.6
3.2 -11
5 -10
The document also includes an alternative definition that is similar in
delay spread but only uses 6 rays.
Regards,
Kevin Baum
==========================================================================