Final report on link level and system level channel models - Winner

WINNER D5.4 v. 1.4
BS,
MS,
σ φ
σ ϕ
10% 2.7 4.5 10.2 6.3
50% 4.8 7.6 21.5 10.9
90% 16.2 13.6 39.5 21.7
mean 7.0 8.4 23.0 12.9
10% 14.5 4.1 24.6 7.5
50% 36.6 10.1 37.4 12.1
90% 67.0 15.4 56.2 21.9
mean 38.8 9.9 39.3 13.5
(a) LOS (Corri-Corri)
(b) NLOS (Corri.-Room)
Figure 5.30: Example CDFs of Azimuth spreads at BS and MS.
5.4.4.2 Scenario B1
Figure 5.31 shows RMS azimuth angle-spread at the MS and for LOS and NLOS propagation conditions.
Figure 5.32 presents RMS azimuth angle-spread at the BS for both LOS and NLOS propagation
conditions. We have not made any statistical fitting comparison based on some well known techniques
like KS test. However, based on Figure 5.31 the lognormal distribution assumption is not as good as the
log-logistic distribution in fitting the RMS azimuth angle-spread at the MS for the case of LOS, while
Gumbel distribution has better fitting for the NLOS case. Distributions fitting to the RMS azimuth spread
at the BS can be seen in Figure 5.32. Again for the LOS case, the log-logistic distribution has better
fitting to measurements than the lognormal distribution. And again for NLOS case, the Gumbel
distribution has better fitting for the NLOS case.
Page 80 (167)