## Directional Measurements in Urban Street Canyons from Macro Rooftop Sites at 28 GHz for 90% Outdoor Coverage

Jinfeng Du, Member, IEEE, Dmitry Chizhik, Fellow, IEEE , Reinaldo A. Valenzuela, Fellow, IEEE , Rodolfo Feick, Life Senior Member, IEEE, Guillermo Castro, Mauricio Rodriguez, Senior Member, IEEE, Tingjun Chen, Manav Kohli, and Gil Zussman, Senior Member, IEEE 1

Abstract Path  gain  and  effective  directional  gain  in azimuth  in  urban  canyons  from  actual  rooftop  base station sites are characterized based on a massive data set of 3000 links on 12 streets in two cities, with over 21 million individual continuous wave power measurements at  28  GHz  using  vertically  polarized  antennas.  Large street-to-street path gain variation is found, with median street path gain varying over 30 dB at similar distances. Coverage in the street directly illuminated by a roof edge antenna is found to suffer an average excess loss of 11 dB relative  to  free  space  at  200  m,  with  empirical  slopeintercept  fit  model  representing  the  data  with  7.1  dB standard  deviation.  Offsetting  the  base  antenna  5  m away from roof  edge,  as  is  common  in  macro  cellular deployments, introduces an additional average loss of 15 dB  at  100  m,  but  this  additional  loss  reduces  with distance.  Around  the  corner  loss  is  well  modeled  by  a diffraction formula with an empirically obtained diffraction coefficient. Effective azimuthal gain degradation due to scatter is limited to 2 dB for 90% of data,  supporting  effective  use  of  high  gain  antennas  in urban street canyons.

## I.INTRODUCTION

Large amounts of spectrum available at mm wave bands promise large communication capacities, provided  adequate  link  budget  can  be  maintained despite increased propagation losses. Link budget can generally be improved both through deploying a dense cell network and using directional antennas for higher directional gain.  Since the cost of deploying a network increases with cell site density, it is critical to determine  coverage  range  from  each  site  to  allow assessment of commercial viability in environments of interest.  Since  effective  directional  antenna  gain  is reduced by scattering, it is important to quantify the achievable directional gain in realistic environments.

Numerous  measurement  campaigns  [1]-[19]  and channel modeling using ray-tracing simulations have been  carried  out  in  the  past  few  years  aiming  for fundamental understanding of mm wave propagation in dense urban environments featuring street canyons.

Uncertainty in predicting average local path gain at a location is due to both location-location variability (a.k.a.  shadow  fading)  as  well  as  uncertainty  due  to estimation of model parameters, i.e. slope and intercept,  based  on  data  fit.    High  reliability  outage statistics  (e.g.,  90%  coverage),  require  hundreds  of links  for  a  particular  environment  to  make  sure  the model uncertainty is much less than the RMS spread in  the  data.  That  requires  many  hundreds  of  link measurements, as opposed to dozens. Very extensive measurements of path gain at 3.35, 8.5, and 15.75 GHz were reported for a single Tokyo street in [5] using a base station at 4 m and a terminal at 1.6 and 2.7 m. A two-ray model with an empirically determined ground height was found to be effective at modeling path loss for the 2.7 m terminal while a single-slope model did well for 1.6 m. Similarly, low-height measurements in [26] found two-ray was effective for lamppost heights, while  a  blockage  model  was  needed  for  peer-peer links.  While  such  measurements  are  very  useful  in characterizing peer-peer and lamppost coverage, there is strong  commercial  motivation  in  characterizing coverage from rooftop macro cellular sites. Two high

Jinfeng  Du,  Dmitry  Chizhik  and  Reinaldo.  A.  Valenzuela  are  with  Nokia  Bell  Labs,  Crawford  Hill,  Holmdel,  NJ  07733,  USA  (e-mail: jinfeng.du@nokia-bell-labs.com, dmitry.chizhik@nokia-bell-labs.com, reinaldo.valenzuela@nokia-bell-labs.com).

Rodolfo Feick is with Department of Electronics and Centro Científico y Tecnológico Valparaíso-CCTVal, Universidad Técnica Federico Santa María, Valparaíso, Chile (e-mail: rodolfo.feick@usm.cl).

Guillermo Castro and Mauricio Rodriguez are with Escuela de Ingeniería Eléctrica de la Pontificia Universidad Católica de Valparaíso, Valparaíso, Chile (email: mauricio.rodriguez.g@pucv.cl, guillermo.castro@pucv.cl).

Tingjun Chen is with the Department of Electrical Engineering, Duke University, Durham, NC 27708, USA. He was with the Department of Electrical Engineering, Columbia University, New York, NY 10027, USA (email: tingjun.chen@duke.edu).

Manav  Kohli  and  Gil  Zussman  are  with  Department  of  Electrical  Engineering,  Columbia  University,  New  York,  NY  10027,  USA  (email: mpk2138@columbia.edu, gil.zussman@columbia.edu).

base  station  locations  were  used  in  [2]  to  collect wideband  directional  data  for  43  terminal  locations. Ultra-wideband measurements [30][31] at 30 and 60 GHz  were  collected  from  two  street  canyons  using dual-polarized horn antennas scanning at steps of 30 , o where the transmitter was placed about 17 m high and the  receiver  moved  to  a  dozen  locations  along  the street for a distance up to 140 m, where both canyons ended with a building. Such measurements are useful for an initial survey, but a reliable quantitative model requires hundreds of locations, as mentioned above.

Around-corner propagation along street canyons is of special importance for coverage planning and intercell interference management. Various path loss models  have  been  developed  in  the  literature  to characterize  around-corner  propagation  along  urban street canyons. Traditional urban macro (UMa) NLOS models with exponent close to 4, such as [20][21], are designed for scenarios where over-the-top propagation is dominant. For cases where both terminals are below average building height, such as in Manhattan street canyon with wall or lamppost mounted base stations, around-corner  propagation  is  dominant  for  NLOS coverage. For sub-6 GHz frequencies (e.g.  430 MHz to  4860  MHz  in  [25]),  street  canyon  NLOS  models with  Manhattan  grid  cell  layout  [21][22][25]  have been  extended  to  mm  wave  bands  in  [9]  using  ray tracing  simulation  over  regular  street  grid,  and  in [10][17] using field measurements. In [10] the ITU-R model  [22]  was  fitted  using  urban  street  canyon measurements from multiple cities in multiple frequency  bands,  and  the  NLOS  distance  exponent was found to be around 3 over multiple bands. In [17] the ITU-R model [25] was fitted using 28 GHz aroundcorner NLOS  measurements with two different distances from the corner, and the path loss exponents were found to be around 4 in one case and around 11 in the other. A dual-slope model, which is essentially a  simplification  of  ITU-R  model  [22][25]  has  been adopted  in  [9]  using  the  LOS  path  to  the  corner  as reference distance and the unwrapped route distance in path loss calculation for NLOS segment.

The  principal objective here is to characterize reliably (with empirical model  uncertainty much smaller  than  shadow  fading  uncertainty)  mm  wave coverage  from  macro  base  stations  to  same-street outdoor terminals both for roof-edge and offset from edge base antennas. This is done to assess improvement  in  rate  offered  by  mm  wave  spectrum over traditional microwave band cellular coverage in more limited bandwidth. Our work derives its conclusions based on over 3000 continuous wave (CW at 28 GHz) links measured at multiple base locations, collected  from  12  streets  in  Manhattan,  NY  and Valparaíso, Chile. There are in total over 21 million individual CW power samples. Each link measurement  consisted  of  over  30  azimuth  scans. Slope-intercept fit represents measured path loss in the street  canyons  with  a  RMS  deviation  of  7.1  dB. Median  degradation  suffered  by  offsetting  the  base antenna  from  the  roof  edge,  as  is  often  done  in practical installations, is found to be 15 dB at 100 m. We find high effective directional gains are available even  in  the  presence  of  street-induced  scatter,  with 90% of locations suffering under 2 dB gain reduction. Path gain for around-corner propagation is well characterized  using  a  diffraction-based  model  with empirically-obtained  coefficients.  The  large  data  set allows statement of empirical models  with  90% confidence interval of  under  1 dB for path gain and under 0.5 dB for effective directional gain distribution. The resulting  models  are  used  to  predict  achievable rates, which are found to exceed 300 Mbps for 90% of outdoor locations for 12 sites/sq km with 400 m intersite-distance and 800 MHz bandwidth at 28 GHz.

## II. MEASUREMENT DESCRIPTION

## A. Measurement equipment

To maximize link budget and data collection speed, we constructed a narrowband sounder, transmitting a 28 GHz CW tone at 22 dBm into an omnidirectional antenna (2 dBi, in Manhattan) or a 55 o horn (10 dBi, in Valparaiso). The signal received by the 10  (24 dBi) o horn,  rotating  in  azimuth  to  collect  signals  arriving from all directions, was amplified by several adjustable  gain  low-noise  amplifiers  (5  dB  effective noise figure), mixed with a local oscillator, resulting in  an  IF  signal  centered  at  100  MHz  with  effective bandwidth of 20 kHz, whose power was measured and converted  to  digital  values  with  a  power  meter  and stored on  a computer.  Both  horn  antennas  were vertically  polarized,  with  cross-pol  isolation  over  25 dB. The complete receiver, including the data acquisition  computer,  was  mounted  on  a  rotating platform allowing a full angular scan at speeds up to 300  rpm.  Given  the  sampling  rate  of  740  power samples/sec,  at  300  rpm,  a  power  measurement  was captured every 2.5 degrees. This angular sampling is substantially  finer  than  the  10   beamwidth  of  the o spinning receive horn.

The system was calibrated in the lab and anechoic chamber  to  assure  absolute  power  accuracy  of  0.15 dB. The full dynamic range of the receiver (from noise floor to 1 dB compression point) was found to be 50 dB,  extensible  to  75  dB  using  switchable  receiver amplifiers.  In  combination  with  removable  transmit attenuators  (0  to  40  dB,  used  at  very  short  ranges), measurable  path  loss  allowing  at  least  10  dB  SNR ranged from 61 dB (1 meter in free space) to 137 dB (e.g. 200 m range with 30 dB excess loss). Measurable path loss extends to 171 dB with directional antenna gains. This follows from 32 dBm EIRP, 24 dBi receive horn  gain,  75  dB  maximum  effective  receiver  gain (combined LNA/ mixer) and target receive power of 40 dBm to be 10 dB above the -50 dBm noise floor.

## B. Measurement environment

To emulate canyon coverage from a rooftop base, the spinning horn receiver was placed at roof edges at multiple  commercial  base  station  (BS)  heights  (as shown  in  Fig.  1a).  Measurements  were  done  while placing the rooftop base in view of the street canyon as well as base antenna offset away from the edge of the roof, as in many commercial sites. The transmitter, either an omnidirectional antenna (in Manhattan) or a 55 o horn (in Valparaíso), was placed on a tripod in the middle of a sidewalk (Fig. 1b). Transmitter placements included both the street in view of the base receiver (same-street) as well as around-the-corner cases. Same-street  coverage  from  lamppost-mounted  base was also assessed.

Over  3000  links  were  measured  for  dense  urban macro deployments, corresponding to over 21 million individual power measurements. Measurements were done  from  8  buildings,  covering  12  streets,  8  in Manhattan  and  4  in  Valparaíso,  with  BS  height varying  from  15  to  51  m  and  transmitter-receiver separation from 35 to 800 m, measured every 3 to 6 m.

Fig.  1a.  Spinning  horn  receiver  overlooking  West  11th Street in Manhattan from a roof edge 18 m high above ground.

![image](https://ac.marcodsn.me/arxiv-markdown-images/1908.00512v3-figure-cbb8a1f3-4e7a-4e63-915f-9facd69c9371.jpg)

Fig. 1b. Omnidirectional transmitter placed in the middle of a sidewalk.

![image](https://ac.marcodsn.me/arxiv-markdown-images/1908.00512v3-figure-7edb25d6-25d8-48c1-b515-687c1de28008.jpg)

## C. Data processing

The azimuthal average of received power over all angular directions, denoted as 𝑃𝑎𝑙𝑙 , has been shown to be  equivalent  to  the  average  omnidirectional  power (see detailed derivation given by equation (1)--(6) in [23]). We can therefore estimate the effective omnidirectional path gain 𝑃𝐺 from 𝑃𝑎𝑙𝑙 by subtracting transmit power P T, nominal transmit antenna gain G T and  nominal  elevation  gain  of  the  receive  antenna G elev :

$$P _ { G } = 1 0 \log _ { 1 0 } ( P _ { a l l } ) - P _ { T } - G _ { T } - G _ { e l e v } \ \ [ \mathrm d B ]$$

Both  transmit  antenna  gain  and  receive  elevation gain  are  assumed  undegraded  by  scattering.  Such idealization  is  justified  by  the  observation  that  the transmit antenna azimuth beamwidth (55 o  for the horn and  360 o for  omni)  employed  in  measurements  is wider than the expected angle spread. Similar justification is made for the elevation gain, since the elevation  angular  spread  has  been  reported  as  being small in channel models such as 3GPP 38.901 [20].

## III. PATH GAIN

Same-street  measurements  were  collected  with  an outdoor terminal placed at successive positions along the street (every 3 to 6 m) in the middle of a sidewalk, and  a  (spinning  horn)  receive  antenna  either  at  roof edge directly illuminating that street or, else, offset by about  5  m  from  roof  edge.  Illustration  of  the  two scenarios is in Fig. 2.

As  the  distance  between  the  transmitter  and  the receiver increases, the first Fresnel zone radius increases  from  a  few  tens  of  centimeters  to  over  a meter at  500  m  and  beyond.  We  may  have  a  visual LOS path between the transmitter and the receiver but the  presence  of  clutter  in  the  first  Fresnel  zone  can cause  substantial  loss.  To  avoid  confusion,  we  use 'same-street' to label links that  would have been in LOS condition if there were no street clutter, and use 'around-corner' for NLOS  links collected from perpendicular streets where the direct paths are blocked by buildings.

Figure  2.  Illustration  of  roof-edge  (orange)  and  offset from roof edge (white), base antenna placement (on left). Same-street terminal is moved along the red line on right.

![image](https://ac.marcodsn.me/arxiv-markdown-images/1908.00512v3-figure-3877bbed-5331-4b20-b4d6-e7f34b127dd8.jpg)

## A. Same-street coverage from roof edge antenna

A  typical  measurement  consisted  of  placing  the rotating 10  receive horn (BS) at the edge of a roof of o a building and placing a transmitter (omnidirectional or  a  10  dBi  horn  manually  re-aimed  towards  the receiver from each transmitter location) on a tripod 1.5 m high at different ranges along a sidewalk, mimicking a user equipment (UE). No effort was done to include or exclude blockage by street clutter, such as vegetation, vehicles, pedestrians, scaffolding. The intent is to emulate coverage of street in the presence of  such  obstructions.  In  total  1650  same-street  links were measured on 12 streets (Manhattan and Valparaíso), and each link recorded power samples for at least 10 seconds (over 7400 samples).  All such path gain vs. distance results are shown in Fig. 3.

Roof edge to same street, 28 GHz

![image](https://ac.marcodsn.me/arxiv-markdown-images/1908.00512v3-figure-80912606-9bc9-4d93-8503-35d1d65f46c4.jpg)

Figure  3.  Same-street  roof  edge  path  gain  at  28  GHz. 1650 links on 12 streets. Different symbol types indicate different streets.

Slope-intercept  fit  to  the  measured  path  gain  with respect to distance, including 90% confidence intervals for both parameters for all the roof-edge data is

$$& P _ { \text{Edge} } = A + 1 0 n \log _ { 1 0 } d + N ( 0, \sigma ), \, \sigma = 7. 1 \, \text{dB} \\ & A = - 3 5. 0 \, + / - \ 2. 7 \, \text{dB}, \, n = - 3. 5 6 + / - \ 0. 1 2 \, \text{dB} \\ & \text{$\mathfrak{i}$}$$

In (1) A [dB] is the 1-m intercept, n is the distance exponent, 𝑑 [m] is the distance, and σ [dB] is the RMS error. The deviation of measured path gain vs. distance from the linear fit (1) is found to be distributed within 0.4  dB  of  a  log-normal  distribution  with  the  same standard deviation, for 99% of points.

At  40  m  the  fit  line  is  close  to  Friis  free  space predictions, but at 200 m there is an excess loss of 11 dB, increasing to 20 dB at 500 m. A fit using a fixed intercept at 1 m (set to be same as Friis) and adjusting distance  exponent  only,  results  in  distance  exponent n= -2.48, with rms deviation of 7.5 dB.

Fitting the path gain measurements in 8 street sets in Manhattan and 4 in Valparaíso separately results in fit lines about 2 dB apart. This is much smaller than path gain differences at a fixed range between streets within each city. It is found that the 3GPP UMa LOS model, which is very close to the free space prediction, has a RMS deviation from our data of about 12.3 dB, while the 3GPP  UMa  NLOS  model  has  17  dB  RMS deviation from data as shown in Fig. 3. As can be seen, these  models  are,  correspondingly  stronger/weaker than data collected here by about 12 dB at 200 m.  That may be due to environment here being different than environments used to define 3GPP models. All streets measured here contained clutter (vegetation, vehicles, etc.)  which  may  be  responsible  for  the  excess  loss observed.  Yet  such  losses  are  not  as  substantial  as 'true' NLOS cases, involving blockage by buildings, which is what the 3GPP NLOS model is intended for. The comparison to data fit and 38.901 UMa models is summarized in Table 1.

Table  1.  Same-street  path  gain  from  roof-edge  antenna. Empirical data compared to its own fit and 3GPP models.

| Model                 |   1-m intercept A [dB] |   Distance exponent n |   RMS error [dB] |
|-----------------------|------------------------|-----------------------|------------------|
| Fit to data           |                  -35   |                 -3.56 |              7.1 |
| 3GPP 38.901 UMa, LOS  |                  -56.9 |                 -2.2  |             12.3 |
| 3GPP 38.901 UMa, NLOS |                  -42.5 |                 -3.91 |             17   |

Also shown in Fig. 3 in red is a ray theory prediction for a canyon, which includes up to 10 reflections from the walls as well as from the ground. The canyon walls were  represented  as  vertical  planes,  with  a  relative dielectric constant of 5, appropriate for concrete. The ray powers are summed incoherently to produce path gain prediction that is monotonically decreasing with distance. The ray theory prediction of average power is  higher than in free space, due to wall and ground reflections. Ray theory is also seen to predict some 13 dB higher power than fit to observations at 200 m. This is attributed  to  unmodelled  street  clutter,  such  as scatter by (generally sparse) trees, lampposts, vehicles and pedestrians. Such objects are generally difficult to represent in ray theory, both in terms of availability of environmental  details  as  well  as  inapplicability  of simple  specular  reflection  models  to  scatter  from complex, rough objects. This is in contrast to reported ray tracing accuracy in [19]. We also note that in [9], fit  to  ray  tracing  calculation  in  LOS  without  street clutter results in higher power than free space prediction,  similar  to  red  curve  in  Fig.  3,  again  in contrast to our measurements. We conclude, based on this  study,  that  simple  ray  tracing  is  inadequate  to represent the data collected here even in the case of a nominally LOS street canyon.

Distributions of  measured path  gain  for individual streets are shown in Fig. 4, each measured at regular intervals  at  ranges  from  30  to  500  m.  They  are  left unlabeled  for  clarity.  At  any  fixed  range  the  streetstreet variation is strong, with median gains spanning -102  to  -133  dB.  This  is  possibly  a  consequence  of differing amounts of vegetation and building heights.

LOS path gains

Figure 4. Distributions of measured path gain between a roof-edge Rx and a same-street terminal Tx on 12 streets, showing street-to-street variability.

![image](https://ac.marcodsn.me/arxiv-markdown-images/1908.00512v3-figure-3282a277-e9b7-43e8-8844-a2523d33f1b5.jpg)

Figure  5.  Comparison of  path  gain  on  streets  with  and without trees, measured at the same roof-edge site.

![image](https://ac.marcodsn.me/arxiv-markdown-images/1908.00512v3-figure-a39a2b5a-3245-4a1f-81cf-0998db99ca39.jpg)

Impact of different street environment on measured path gain is illustrated in Fig. 5, containing measurements along 7 th  Ave in Manhattan (which has practically no trees) and along W 11 th Street (with a lot of trees) measured from the same roof-top at the corner of  these  two  streets.  The  data  from  both  streets  has been included in the overall data set shown in Fig. 4. It may be observed that the path gain on the street with trees  has  a  far  higher  distance  exponent  of  -8.1  as opposed to -2.3 on a street with no trees. This leads to some 23 dB more loss at 500 m. Notably this is  so despite  the  absence  of  leaves  during  these  winter measurements.

## B. Same-street coverage from rooftop antenna offset from roof edge

Base station antennas are often deployed away from roof  edge,  closer  to  the  middle  of  the  building,  to conceal  them  from  street  view  based  on  aesthetic considerations. Naturally, there is concern that street coverage is degraded due to roof blockage, particularly at higher frequencies. To emulate conditions experienced by base station antennas when offset from the roof edge, the spinning horn receiver was placed about 5 meters away from roof edge, as is common,  at  a  height  of  1  m  above  the  roof.  This caused line of sight to be blocked by a parapet to the terminal locations within 100 m or so, depending on building height, which varied from 19 to 51 m in these offset measurements. Measured path gain for all 1277 such links on 9 streets are shown in Fig. 6, together with a slope-intercept  fit  (including 90% confidence intervals):

$$& P _ { \text{offset} } = A + 1 0 n \log _ { 1 0 } d + N ( 0, \sigma ), \ \sigma = 7. 0 \ d B \\ & A = - 9 4 \ + / - \ 3. 7 \ d B, \ n = - 1. 4 4 + / - \ 0. 1 6$$

Same-street data, roof edge and offset antenna

Figure 6. Path gain for base offset from roof edge, at 28 GHz.  1277  links  on  9  streets.  Different  symbol  types indicate different streets.

![image](https://ac.marcodsn.me/arxiv-markdown-images/1908.00512v3-figure-90231a24-2a85-47a9-ade5-88ab6362dd3a.jpg)

Fitting  the  measured  path  gain  by  adjusting  the slope-only, with a fixed intercept set for 1m to the Friis value,  results  in  an  exponent  of n =  -2.80,  and  rms deviation of 7.7 dB.

At ranges of less than 100 m, where the offset base station is blocked from direct view of the street, 25 dB to 50 dB excess loss relative to free space is observed. at ranges beyond 100 m, path loss is about 20 dB worse than free space.

Fit to roof-edge data (from Fig. 3) is also plotted in Fig. 6 for reference. For ranges under 100 m, offsetting the  antenna  about  5  meters  away  from  roof  edge introduces  over  15  dB  average  extra  loss.  At  longer ranges, the difference is reduced. Since the presumed degradation mechanism is diffraction loss at the roof edge, the excess loss becomes smaller at longer ranges where  the  diffraction  angle  is  small.  At  very  long ranges, the terminal is no longer blocked by the roof edge, despite being offset. In addition, reflections from nearby buildings provide a possibility of nondiffracted paths.

## C. Same-street coverage from lampposts

To  assess  same-street  coverage  from  lamppostmounted  BS,  measurements  were  collected  at  422 links on 3 streets with BS receiver mounted at heights ranging from 8 to 15 m and terminal Tx on the street. The resulting path gain values, shown in Fig. 7, are represented by a slope-intercept fit as:

$$& P _ { \text{lamppost} } = A + 1 0 n \log _ { 1 0 } d + N ( 0, \sigma ), \\ & A = - 6 0. 4 \text{ d} B, \ n = - 2. 4 2, \ \sigma = 5. 5 \text{ d} B$$

![image](https://ac.marcodsn.me/arxiv-markdown-images/1908.00512v3-figure-f6c0f127-14ce-4c80-adc0-cd3783d6a63f.jpg)

The  fitted model  shows  the  path  gain in this environment suffers about 9 dB more loss than  free space  at  200  m.  Fitting  the  lamppost  data  with  an adjustable  distance  exponent,  while  fixing  the  1-m intercept to its free space value, results in an exponent of n =-2.37, and RMS deviation of 5.5 dB. Using the rooftop-derived slope-intercept values (1) to represent lamppost  data  results  in  only  an  increase  in  RMS deviation to 6.0 dB, suggesting very similar path gain behavior  for  roof-edge  and  lamppost  mounted  base stations in same-street coverage.  These  lamppost results  have  been  included  in  the  overall  street-bystreet path gain distributions reported in Fig. 4.

## D. Around-the-corner coverage from roof edge

As illustrated in Fig. 8, when both roof-edge Rx and street-level transmitter are on the same street, they are in 'nominally LOS' conditions with possible blockage from trees or street  fixtures.  As one terminal  moves around  a corner into a perpendicular street, the propagation  channel  changes  from  same-street  to being  around-one-corner,  and  then  possibly  NLOS around-two-corners [9][25]. In those geometry-based models,  it is the 'Manhattan  distance',  i.e., the unwrapped  distance  along  the  route,  that  is  used  in path  loss  modeling.  This  is  in  contrast  to  traditional models  where  Euclidean  distances  are  used,  which may  result  in  large  RMS  fitting  error  (11  dB  as reported in [18]) for street canyon NLOS channels.

Figure 8. Around-corner measurements with rotating Rx (red  hex  star  near  bottom)  on  the  roof  of  a  six-story building, and the 1.5m-high Tx, moving along the same street  (red  line)  and  around-corner  (blue,  orange,  and green lines).

![image](https://ac.marcodsn.me/arxiv-markdown-images/1908.00512v3-figure-aba535e3-4607-43b1-b2c1-f492c5534e31.jpg)

Based  on  the  success  of  modeling  around-corner propagation along hallways inside buildings [23], we propose two theory-inspired empirical models, namely, a single-slope scattering model [23] where the corner is treated as a new source, and a single-slope diffraction  model  where  edge-diffraction  around  the corner is assumed to be the dominant mechanism. Let x be the unwrapped distance between the two terminals, and without loss of generality assuming one terminal is fixed, and the other terminal moves away along  the  street  and  then  turns  into  a  perpendicular street. As distance x increases, the propagation channel changes from same-street to around-corner.

The diffraction model is given by

$$\text{$time$ minimum $\mathfrak{s}$ is given $v$} \\ P _ { d } ( x ) = \begin{cases} P _ { 1 } + 1 0 n \log _ { 1 0 } ( x ) \,, & 1 < x < d _ { c } \\ P _ { 1 } - \Delta + 5 n \log _ { 1 0 } ( d _ { c } ( x - d _ { c } ) x ) \,, x > d _ { c } \\ ( 3 ) \\ \dots \dots & 1 = 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 - 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 * 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 | + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 2 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 +1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + -1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 - 2 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 - 3 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 0 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 3 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 - 5 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 5 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 - 6 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 7 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 9 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 6 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 - 7 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 - 9 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1$$

where d c is the distance from the fixed terminal to the corner, P 1 is  the  intercept  at  1  m  distance, n is  the common  distance  exponent  before  and  after the corner,  and 0  is   the  empirical  'corner  loss', replacing  diffraction  coefficient  used  in  canonical edge diffraction models. When fixing n =-2 it is similar to the corner model in [29].

The scattering model is given by

$$P _ { s } ( x ) = \begin{cases} \dot { \ P _ { 1 } + 1 0 n \log _ { 1 0 } ( x ), \ \ 1 < x < d _ { c } } \\ P _ { 1 } - \Delta + 1 0 n \log _ { 1 0 } ( d _ { c } ( x - d _ { c } ) ), \ \ x > d _ { c } \\ \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \end{cases} ( 4 )$$

It is also worthwhile to compare (3) and (4) with the dual-slope corner model proposed in [9]

1 1 10 c ( ) 10 log ( ),   1 P x P n x x d    

$$& = P _ { 1 } + 1 0 n _ { 1 } \log _ { 1 0 } ( d _ { c } ) - \Delta + 1 0 n _ { 2 } \log _ { 1 0 } \left ( \frac { x } { d _ { c } } \right ), \ x > d _ { c } ^ { ( 5 ) } \\ & \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot$$

where 1 n and 2 n are the distance exponents of beforeand after-the-corner segments, respectively.

We  validate those models  using measurements collected in Manhattan. We placed the rotating horn receiver on the roof of a six-story building located at a street intersection  and  moved  the  omnidirectional transmitter (mounted on a 1.5 m high tripod) along the sidewalk  of  a  30  m  wide  street.  The  measurement routes are illustrated in Fig. 8 where the same-street route is indicated by a red line and three around-corner routes  in  blue,  orange,  and  green,  respectively.  The surrounding buildings are of various heights, and the ones blocking the direct path are from 10 to over 20 story high, much higher than the six-story roof where the base is placed. A total of 98 same-street links (i.e. before corner) were collected from 91 to 565 m along the street. Around-corner links were collected on three perpendicular streets where the corners are 244 m, 332 m, and 414 m away from the base, and the length of the  NLOS paths extend up to 210 m. The measured data and the single-slope diffraction model are shown in Fig. 9 and the fitted parameters of the models are summarized in Table  2. The  measured  data  and  the fitted models  indicate  that  after  turning  around  a corner  in  a  Manhattan  street  canyon,  signal  drops about 14 dB after 10 m into the corner, and about 21 dB after 50 m into the corner.

The single-slope diffraction inspired model provides the  best  fit,  with  3.4  dB  RMS  error  using  only  two parameters (slope and corner loss). This suggests that signal re-spreading from the corner are an important propagation  mechanism  in  urban  Manhattan  street canyons  (continuous  tall  buildings  on  both  sides  of streets with no or thin foliage). The dual-slope model (5) provides larger fitting error despite the fact that it uses  more  parameters  (two  slopes,  corner  loss)  than the  diffraction  model  (3).  Therefore,  a  diffraction formulation is apparently better for around-the-corner path loss in urban street canyons. The scattering model (4)  has  the  highest  RMS  error  of  6.6  dB.  Allowing floating  intercept  will  only  slightly  reduce  the  RMS error for diffraction model (3) and dual-slope model

(5), but would substantially reduce the RMS error to 4.1 dB for the scattering model (4).

![image](https://ac.marcodsn.me/arxiv-markdown-images/1908.00512v3-figure-b948fb55-be28-4cea-aaf6-0398ddd0bdc5.jpg)

Figure 9. Around-corner measurements with the single-slope diffraction  inspired  channel  model  using  fixed  intercept  of Friis @ 1m, with rms fitting error of 3.4 dB.

Table 2. Fitted parameters of candidate channel models for around-corner links, with 1-m intercept either fixed at Friis value or fit to data.

| Model                 | Intercept 1 P      | Exponent n             | Corner loss    |   RMSE [dB] |
|-----------------------|--------------------|------------------------|-----------------|-------------|
| Diffraction model (3) | Friis @1m -61.4 dB | -2.27                  | 2.2 dB          |         3.4 |
| Scattering model (4)  | Friis @1m -61.4 dB | -2.23                  | 0 dB            |         6.6 |
| Dual-slope model (5)  | Friis @1m -61.4 dB | n 1 = -2.27 n 2 =-12.3 | 12.0 dB         |         4   |
| Diffraction model (3) | -52.1 dB           | -2.63                  | 0 dB            |         3.2 |
| Scattering model (4)  | -81.3 dB           | -1.44                  | 0 dB            |         4.1 |
| Dual-slope model (5)  | -11.8 dB           | n 1 = -3.35 n 2 =-12.2 | 11.8 dB         |         3.6 |

Note  that for both diffraction model  and  the scattering model, the corner loss is very small, only 2.2 dB  for  diffraction  model  and  0  dB  for  scattering model.  This  is  in  sharp  contrast  to  indoor  corridor around-corner propagation reported in [23]. This may also  be  compared  to  the  theoretical  edge  diffraction coefficient,  which  at  large  diffraction  angles  (deep shadow)  is  on  the  order  of  -42  dB  at  28  GHz  [28]. Similar findings  have been reported in around-street corner  measurements for 400 MHz to 4.8 GHz  [29] where an empirical 'scattering coefficient' S 2 equivalent to  was obtained through fit to measurements and found to be much larger than the theoretical edge diffraction coefficient. This was attributed to scattering from lampposts and other street furniture. Thus, this level of environmental detail may render ray tracing impractical for mm wave bands.

## IV. EFFECTIVE DIRECTIONAL GAIN IN AZIMUTH

High antenna gain is essential to compensate for the high propagation losses in mm/cm  wave  bands. However,  the  potential  directional  gain  degradation caused by angular spread would make it less effective. In this section we quantify the azimuth directional gain degradation experienced by the 10 o  horn at the base . 2 The effective pattern of an antenna, as seen from field power-angular measurement, is the convolution of its nominal pattern (as measured in an anechoic chamber) and the channel angular response (scattering pattern). Channel angular spread widens the effective antenna pattern and therefore reduces its effective gain. In all cases, the azimuthal gain is defined as the ratio of the maximum power to average power over all angles:

$$\text{Azimuth} \, \text{gain} \, = \, \frac { \max _ { \varphi } P ( \varphi ) } { \frac { 1 } { 2 \pi } \int d \varphi \, P ( \varphi ) } { \frac { 1 } { 2 \pi } \int d \varphi \, P ( \varphi ) } { \frac { 1 } { 2 \pi } \int d \varphi \, T ( \varphi ) } { \frac { 1 } { 2 \pi } \int d \varphi \, T ( \varphi ) } { \frac { 1 } { 2 \pi } \int d \varphi \, T ( \varphi ) } { \frac { 1 } { 2 \pi } \int d \varphi \, T ( \varphi ) } { \frac { 1 } { 2 \pi } \int d \varphi \, T ( \varphi ) } { \frac { 1 } { 2 \pi } \int d \varphi \, T ( \varphi ) } { \frac { 1 } { 2 \pi } \int d \varphi \, T ( \varphi ) } { \frac { 1 } { 2 \pi } \int d \varphi \, T ( \varphi ) } { \frac { 1 } { 2 \pi } } { \frac { 1 } { 2 \pi } \int d \varphi \, T ( \varphi ) } { \frac { 1 } { 2 \pi } \int d \varphi \, T ( \varphi ) } { \frac { 1 } { 2 \pi } \int d \varphi \, T ( \varphi ) } { \frac { 1 } { 2 \pi } \int d \varphi \, T ( \varphi ) } { \frac { 1 } { 2 \pi } \int d \varphi \, T ( \varphi ) } { \frac { 1 } { 2 \pi } \int d \varphi \, T ( \varphi ) } { \frac { 1 } { 2 \pi } \int d \varphi \, T ( \varphi ) } { \frac { 1 } { 2 \pi } \int d \varpowhat { \ }powhat { \ }powhat { \ }powhat { \ }powhat { \ }powhat { \ }powhat { \ }powhat { \ }powhat { \ }powhat { \ }powhat { \ }powhat { \ }powhat { \ }powhat { \ }powhat { \ }powhat { \ }powhat { \ }powhat { \ }powhat { \ }powhat { \ }powhat { \ }powhat { \ }powhat { \ }powhat { \ }powhat { \ }powhat { \ }powhat { \ }powhat { \ }powhat { \ }powhat { \ }powhat { \ }powhat { \ }powhat { \ }powhat { \ }povhat { \ }powhat { \ }powhat { \ }powhat { \ }powhat { \ }powhat { \ }powhat { \ }powhat { \ }powhat { \ }powhat { \ }powhat { \ }powhat { \ }powhat { \ }powhat { \ }powhat { \ }powhat { \ }powhat { \ }powhat { \ }powhat { \ }powhat { \ }powhat { \ }powhat { \ }powhat { \ }powhat { \ }powhat { \ }powhat { \ }powhat { \ }powhat { \ }powhat { \ }powhat { \ }powhat { \ }powhat { \ }powhat { \ }powhat \ }powhat { \ }powhat { \ }powhat { \ }powhat { \ }powhat { \ }powhat { \ }powhat { \ }powhat { \ }powhat { \ }powhat { \ }powhat { \ }powhat { \ }powhat { \ }powhat { \ }powhat { \ }powhat { \ }powhat { \ }powhat { \ }powhat { \ }powhat { \ }powhat { \ }powhat { \ }powhat { \ }powhat { \ }powhat { \ }powhat { \ }powhat { \ }powhat { \ }powhat { \ }powhat { \ }powhat { \ }powhat { \ }powhat { \ \ }powhat { \ }powhat { \ }powhat { \ }powhat { \ }powhat { \ }powhat { \ }powhat { \ }powhat { \ }powhat { \ }powhat { \ }powhat { \ }powhat { \ }powhat { \ }powhat { \ }powhat { \ }powhat { \ }powhat { \ }powhat { \ }powhat { \ }powhat { \ }powhat { \ }powhat { \ }powhat { \ }powhat { \ }powhat { \ }powhat { \ }powhat { \ }powhat { \ }powhat { \ }powhat { \ }powhat { \ }powhat { \ }powhat { \  }powhat { \ }powhat { \ }powhat { \ }powhat { \ }powhat { \ }powhat { \ }powhat { \ }powhat { \ }powhat { \ }powhat { \ }powhat { \ }powhat { \ }powhat { \ }powhat { \ }powhat { \ }powhat { \ }powhat { \ }powhat { \ }powhat { \ }powhat { \ }powhat { \ }powhat { \ }powhat { \ }powhat { \ }powhat { \ }powhat { \ }powhat { \ }powhat { \ }powhat { \ }powhat { \ }powhat { \ }powhat { \ }powhat { \ } powhat { \ }powhat { \ }powhat { \ }powhat { \ }powhat { \ }powhat { \ }powhat { \ }powhat { \ }powhat { \ }powhat { \ }powhat { \ }powhat { \ }powhat { \ }powhat { \ }powhat { \ }powhat { \ }powhat { \ }powhat { \ }powhat { \ }powhat { \ }powhat { \ }powhat { \ }powhat { \ }powhat { \ }powhat { \ }powhat { \ }powhat { \ }powhat { \ }powhat { \ }powhat { \ }powhat { \ }powhat { \ }powhat { \ }pow. } } } }$$

It was found that in many streets the effective gain for the roof-edge base generally increased weakly with distance. The implicit angle spread thus decreases with distance  in  street  canyons.  An  example  of  this  is illustrated by plotting normalized azimuth patterns in Fig.  10,  where  the  blue  pattern,  measured  at  580  m range, shows an unambiguous main lobe, some 40 dB above sidelobes, while the black pattern, measured at 100 m, shows a second lobe about 10 dB below the main  lobe,  corresponding  to  a  reflection  from  a building close to the roof top receiver.

Figure  10.  Measured  normalized  patterns  for  base  in direct view of the street. Solid blue is measured at 580 m, dashed  black  at 100  m.  Red  dash-dot  pattern  was measured in anechoic chamber.

![image](https://ac.marcodsn.me/arxiv-markdown-images/1908.00512v3-figure-dc4c769e-5950-4f63-aa63-64f8c3fccf1b.jpg)

2 The  10 o (24  dBi)  horn  at  the  base  has  a  beam pattern  that  is  close  to  some  of  the  early  28  GHz phased array products used in base stations.

Distributions  of  measured  azimuth  gains  in  both roof-edge and offset measurements are plotted in Fig. 11. Colored regions around the  roof-edge and offset cases are 90% confidence intervals [27]. In the roofedge case 90% of observed azimuth gains are within 2 dB of the antenna nominal azimuth gain, a reference measured  in  an  anechoic  chamber.  When  the  base antenna is offset by 5 m from the roof edge, 90% of observed azimuth gains are within 4 dB of the nominal gain. The  additional  degradation  may  be  due  to scattering from nearby roof structures.

Degradation from the nominal 14.5 dB azimuth gain observed in Fig. 11 may be used to account for gain degradation in link budget calculations, as well as to derive corresponding azimuth angle spread. We note that  the  gain  degradation  found  in  these  channels  is small, implying narrow angle spread and supporting effectiveness of using high gain base antennas in street canyons.  In  contrast,  high  directional  antennas  are ineffective  in  fully  scattering  channels  where  power versus  angle  is  constant  on  average,  although  the angular spectrum instantiation is subject to directiondependent fading. As a result, modest diversity gains are  achievable  by  selecting  the  direction  with  the highest power instantiation, as shown in Fig. 11 where the simulated arrivals from different directions follow the i.i.d. complex Gaussian distribution, as appropriate in full scattering. The amplitude of the complex sum is  then  Rayleigh  distributed.  The  complex  channel spectrum  is  convolved  with  the  complex  antenna pattern [23] to generate instantiations of the pattern, whose gain is computed using (6) and plotted as the 'full scattering' distribution in Fig. 11.

Figure  11.  Distribution  of  observed  effective  azimuth gain for base antennas on the roof edge and offset from roof edge.

![image](https://ac.marcodsn.me/arxiv-markdown-images/1908.00512v3-figure-7bdbcb16-5e31-451e-9e68-781d499693b2.jpg)

## V.ACHIEVABLE RATES BASED ON PROPAGATION MEASUREMENTS

To  evaluate  coverage  in  dense  urban  deployment, we simulate rates in an idealized urban network with 200 m by 50 m rectangular city blocks and with cells placed at  street  corners  separated  by  400  m  along  a street, as  illustrated  in  Fig.  12,  where  blue  stars indicate base station sites. To provide coverage along all streets, each site is located at the intersection, with four  cells  covering  four  directions  along  the  streets, but not all streets contain a base station. We use path loss  formulas presented above for same-street (roofedge) (1) and around-the-corner channels (3).

We focus on the downlink (DL) cell rate assuming 800  MHz  bandwidth  at  28  GHz  band.  Each  cell, mounted on the roof of a 20 m high corner building is assumed to have 28 dBm transmit power and 23 dBi nominal antenna gain. Each UE is assumed to have 6 dBi antenna gain with noise figure of 9 dB. Path loss models are from Section III and gain degradation is computed based on our measurements in Sec. IV. The base  station  is  assumed  to  aim  towards  the  UE  it  is serving  and  interference  from  neighboring  cells  is included in SINR calculation. Since UEs are served by the  strongest  base,  they  may  benefit  from  macro diversity.  Rates are computed as the Shannon rate of the 10 th percentile DL SINR with a 3 dB implementation penalty. The resulting coverage map is illustrated in Fig. 12.

SNR, 400m ISD

Figure 12. Simulated SNR distribution on urban streets with bases (blue stars) placed at intersections, separated 400 m along a street, 12 sites/sq km.

![image](https://ac.marcodsn.me/arxiv-markdown-images/1908.00512v3-figure-b73a8016-ee60-4191-813c-56abe9ecde10.jpg)

400m ISD

Figure 13. SNR/SINR distributions for a 28 GHz urban network with 400 m ISD, 12 sites/sq km.

![image](https://ac.marcodsn.me/arxiv-markdown-images/1908.00512v3-figure-f66c9612-a67e-47c0-9f3f-39ea27b69a93.jpg)

400m ISD

Figure 14. Shannon rate distribution for outdoor terminals in a 28 GHz urban network with 400 m ISD, 12 sites/sq km.

![image](https://ac.marcodsn.me/arxiv-markdown-images/1908.00512v3-figure-65a0121e-4cb8-46bb-b5db-43392c23a45b.jpg)

The SNR/SINR and rate distributions are shown in Fig. 13 and Fig. 14, respectively. It may be observed in Fig. 13 that the SNR is 5 dB higher than SINR for 90% of outdoor locations, indicating an interferencelimited (outdoor) system. The 10 th percentile rate for 400m  inter-site-distance (ISD) is 350 Mbps  for outdoor terminals. Higher cell densities of 25 and 50 sites/sq  km,  not  shown  here  due  to  space  limitation, were  found  to  have  similar  rate  distributions  as  12 sites/sq  km  shown  in  Fig.  14.  Naturally,  actual  user rates are impacted by the cell density as it determines the  degree  of  sharing  of  bandwidth  among  users. Should a different directional gain degradation model or around-the-corner path loss model be used, or the base  be  offset  from  roof  edge,  the  results  might  be different.  Their  impact  on  system performance is an interesting direction for future work.

## VI. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS

Over 21 million CW power samples in 3000 links on 12  streets  in  Manhattan,  NY  and  Valparaíso,  Chile were collected to characterize propagation at 28 GHz in urban canyons from roof top base stations using a vertically polarized azimuthally rotating horn antenna at the base, at ranges up to 800 m.

Slope-intercept fit to same-street path gain data from roof-edge base is found to have RMS deviation of 7.1 dB. Large statistical significance of the data allowed for high 90% certainty in fit parameters (+/- 2.7 dB for 1-m intercept and +/- 0.12 for slope).

Standard 3GPP models were found to produce 12 to 17 dB RMS loss relative to our data. Measured path gain  was  found  to  suffer  excess  loss  relative  to  free space that increased with distance, reaching 11 dB at 200 m. It was found that standard ray tracing in this simple same-street scenario overpredicts signal strength  (13  dB  at  200  m),  probably  due  to  the omission  of difficult-to-model scatter from  street objects, such as vehicles, pedestrians and trees. Separate fits to subsets of data collected in Manhattan and Valparaíso were within 2 dB of each other, as were lamppost  to  street  and  roof  to  street.  Offsetting  the base antenna 5 m away from the roof edge, towards the center of the building led to an additional average loss of 15 dB at 100 m.  Around the corner propagation is well modeled by a diffraction-based model using an empirical diffraction coefficient of 2 dB.

90% of measured effective azimuthal base antenna gains  were  within  2  dB  of  nominal,  indicating  low angle spread compared to the nominal antenna beamwidth of 10 o .

Simulation  of  network  performance  for  outdoor users indicated 90% users have a Shannon rate of 350 Mbps or higher, with 400 m ISD and 12 sites/sq km. For  the  simulated  site  arrangement,  the  majority  of outdoor locations were not in line of sight to any cell. Quadrupling site density led to near quadrupling of the shared user rate, consistent with decreased number of users per cell.

## ACKNOWLEDGMENT

The  authors wish to acknowledge  the support received  from  the  Chilean  Research  Agency  ANID, through research grants ANID PIA/APOYO AFB180002, ANID FONDECYT/INICACION 11171159,  ANID  REDES  180144,  Project  VRIEAPUCV  039.430/2020 and Project VRIEA-PUCV 039.437/2020. The work of T. Chen, M. Kohli and G. Zussman was supported in part by NSF grants ECCS1547406  and  CNS-1827923,  and  NSF-BSF  grant CNS-1910757.  Many  thanks  to  Hector  Carrasco, Leonardo Guerrero and Rene Pozo for designing and building the platform, Cuong  Tran  for essential diagnostics  and  repair,  Tianyi  Dai,  Angel  Daniel Estigarribia and Shounak Roy for assistance in measurements.

## REFERENCES

- [1] M. Kyro, V. Kolmonen and P. Vainikainen, "Experimental Propagation Channel Characterization of mm-Wave Radio Links in Urban  Scenarios," IEEE  Antennas  and Wireless Propagation Letters, vol. 11, pp. 865-868, Aug. 2012.
- [2] T. S. Rappaport, F. Gutierrez, E. Ben-Dor, J. N. Murdock, Y. Qiao and J. I. Tamir, "Broadband Millimeter-Wave Propagation Measurements  and  Models  Using  Adaptive-Beam  Antennas  for Outdoor Urban Cellular Communications," IEEE Transactions on Antennas and Propagation, vol. 61, pp. 1850-1859, Apr. 2013.
- [3] H. J. Thomas, R. S. Cole and G. L. Siqueira, "An experimental study of the propagation of 55 GHz millimeter waves in an urban mobile radio environment," IEEE Transactions on Vehicular Technology, vol. 43, pp. 140-146, Feb. 1994.
- [4] V. Semkin, U. Virk, A. Karttunen, K. Haneda and A. V. Räisänen, "E-band  propagation  channel  measurements  in  an  urban  street canyon," 2015 9th European Conference on Antennas and Propagation (EuCAP), Lisbon, Portugal, Apr. 2015.
- [5] H.  Masui,  T.  Kobayashi  and  M.  Akaike,  "Microwave  path-loss modeling  in  urban  line-of-sight  environments,"  IEEE  Journal  on Selected Areas in Communications, vol. 20, pp. 1151-1155, Aug. 2002.
- [6] R. J.  Weiler,  M.  Peter,  T.  Kühne, M. Wisotzki and W. Keusgen, "Simultaneous millimeter-wave multi-band channel sounding in an urban access scenario," 2015 9th European Conference on Antennas and Propagation (EuCAP), Lisbon, Portugal, Apr. 2015.
- [7] A. F. Molisch et al., "Millimeter-wave channels in urban environments," 2016 10th European Conference on Antennas and Propagation (EuCAP), Davos, Switzerland, Apr. 2016.
- [8] W. Keusgen, R. J. Weiler, M. Peter, M. Wisotzki and B. Göktepe, "Propagation  measurements  and  simulations  for  millimeter-wave mobile access in a busy urban environment," 2014 39th International  Conference  on  Infrared,  Millimeter,  and  Terahertz waves (IRMMW-THz), Tucson, AZ, Sept. 2014.
- [9] A. Karttunen, A. F. Molisch, S. Hur, J. Park, C. J. Zhang, 'Spatially Consistent Street-by-Street Path Loss Model for 28-GHz Channels in Micro Cell Urban Environments', IEEE Transactions on Wireless Communications, vol.16, pp. 7538-7550, Nov. 2017.
- [10] K. Haneda, N. Omaki, T. Imai, L. Raschkowski, M. Peter and A. Roivainen,  'Frequency-agile  pathloss  models  for  urban  street canyons,' IEEE Transactions on Antennas and Propagation, vol. 64, pp. 1941-1951, May 2016.
- [11] K. Haneda et al., '5G 3GPP-like channel models for outdoor urban microcellular  and  macrocellular  environments,'  IEEE  Vehicular Technology Conference (VTC Spring), Nanjing, China, May 2016.
- [12] T.  S.  Rappaport,  Y.  Xing,  G.  R.  MacCartney,  A.  F.  Molisch,  E. Mellios and J. Zhang, 'Overview of millimeter wave communications for fifth-generation (5G) wireless networks-with a focus on propagation models,' IEEE Transactions on Antennas and Propagation, vol. 65, pp. 6213-6230, Dec. 2017.
- [13] J. Ko, Y.-J. Cho, S. Hur, T. Kim, J. Park, A. F. Molisch, K. Haneda, M. Peter, D. Park, D.-H. Cho, 'Millimeter-Wave Channel Measurements and Analysis for Statistical Spatial Channel Model in In-Building and Urban  Environments  at  28 GHz',  IEEE Transactions on Wireless Communications, vol. 16, pp. 5853-5868, Sept. 2017.
- [14] V. Raghavan, A. Partyka, L. Akhoondzadeh-Asl, M. A. Tassoudji, O. H. Koymen and J. Sanelli 'Millimeter wave channel measurement  and  implications  for PHY  layer  design', IEEE Transactions on Antennas and Propagation, vol. 65, pp. 6521-6533, Dec. 2017.
- [15] H. Zhao, R. Mayzus, S. Sun, M. Samimi, J. K. Schulz; Y. Azar, K. Wang,  G.  N.  Wong,  F.  Gutierrez,  T.  S.  Rappaport,  '28  GHz

millimeter wave cellular communication measurements for reflection and penetration loss in and around buildings in New York city,'  IEEE  International  Conference  on  Communications  (ICC), Budapest, Hungary, Jun. 2013.

- [16] R. Wang, C. U. Bas, S. Sangodoyin, S. Hur, J. Park, J. Zhang and A. F. Molisch, 'Stationarity region of Mm-Wave channel based on outdoor  microcellular  measurements  at  28  GHz,'  IEEE  Military Communications  Conference  (MILCOM),  Baltimore,  MD,  Oct. 2017.
- [17] J.  Lee,  M.  Kim,  J.  Liang,  J.  Park  and  B.  Park,  "Frequency  range extension of the ITU-R NLOS path loss models applicable for urban street environments  with  28  GHz  measurements,"  2016  10th European  Conference  on  Antennas  and  Propagation  (EuCAP), Davos, Switzerland, Apr. 2016.
- [18] C. Larsson, B. Olsson and J. Medbo, "Angular Resolved Pathloss Measurements  in  Urban  Macrocell  Scenarios  at  28  GHz,"  2016 IEEE 84th Vehicular Technology Conference (VTC-Fall), Montreal, Canada, Sept. 2016.
- [19] S. Hur et al., "Proposal on Millimeter-Wave Channel Modeling for 5G Cellular  System,"  IEEE  Journal  of  Selected  Topics  in  Signal Processing, vol. 10, pp. 454-469, Apr. 2016.
- [20] 'Study on channel model for frequencies from 0.5 to 100 GHz,' 3GPP Technical Report TR 38.901 v14.1.1, Jul. 2017. http://www.3gpp.org/ftp/specs/archive/38\_series/38.901/38901e11.zip
- [21] 'Further advancements for E-UTRA physical layer aspects (Release 9)', 3GPP Technical Report TR 36.814, V9.2.0, Mar. 2017.
- [22] 'Guidelines for evaluation of radio interface technologies for IMTAdvanced,' ITU-R Report M.2135-1, Dec. 2009.
- [23] D.  Chizhik,  J.  Du,  R.  Feick,  G.  Castro,  M.  Rodriguez  and  R.  A. Valenzuela, 'Path Loss and Directional Gain Measurements at 28 GHz  for  non-line-of-sight  coverage  of  indoors  with  corridors,' IEEE Transactions on Antennas and Propagation, vol. 68, pp. 48204830, Jun. 2020.
- [24] J.  Du,  D.  Chizhik,  R.  Feick,  M.  Rodríguez,  G.  Castro  and  R.  A. Valenzuela, "Suburban Fixed Wireless Access Channel Measurements and Models at 28 GHz for 90% Outdoor Coverage," IEEE Transactions on Antennas and Propagation, vol. 68, pp. 411420, Jan. 2020.
- [25] 'Propagation data and prediction methods for the planning of shortrange  outdoor  radio  communication systems and  radio  local  area networks in the frequency range 300 MHz  to 100 GHz,' Recommendation ITU-R P.1441-9, Jun. 2017.
- [26] M. Sasaki, W. Yamada, T. Sugiyama, M. Mizoguchi and T. Imai, "Path  loss  characteristics  at  800  MHz  to  37  GHz  in  urban  street microcell environment," 2015 9th European Conference on Antennas and Propagation (EuCAP), Lisbon, Portugal, Apr. 2015.
- [27] A. Dvoretzky; J. Kiefer, J. Wolfowitz, (1956). "Asymptotic minimax character of the sample distribution function and of the classical multinomial estimator," Annals of Mathematical Statistics, vol. 27, pp. 642-669, Sept. 1956.
- [28] H.  L.  Bertoni,  Radio  Propagation  for  Modern  Wireless  Systems, Prentice Hall, 2000.
- [29] J. S. Lu, H. L. Bertoni, K. A. Remley, W. F. Young and J. Ladbury, "Site-Specific Models of the Received Power for Radio Communication in Urban Street Canyons," IEEE Transactions on Antennas and Propagation, vol. 62, pp. 2192-2200, Apr. 2014.
- [30] D. Dupleich, R. Müller, S. Skoblikov, J. Luo, G. Del Galdo and R. S. Thomä,  "Multi-band  Double-directional  5G  Street  Canyon Measurements in Germany," 2019 European Conference on Networks  and  Communications  (EuCNC),  Valencia,  Spain,  Jun. 2019.
- [31] D.  Dupleich  et  al.,  "Multi-band  Propagation  and  Radio  Channel Characterization in Street Canyon Scenarios for 5G and Beyond," IEEE Access, vol. 7, pp. 160385-160396, Oct. 2019.
Jinfeng Du Dmitry Chizhik Reinaldo A. Valenzuela Rodolfo Feick Guillermo Castro Mauricio Rodriguez Tingjun Chen Manav Kohli Gil Zussman
Directional Measurements in Urban Street Canyons from Macro Rooftop Sites at 28 GHz for 90% Outdoor Coverage
Path gain and effective directional gain in azimuth in urban canyons from
actual rooftop base station sites are characterized based on a massive data set
of 3000 links on 12 streets in two cities, with over 21 million individual
continuous wave power measurements at 28 GHz using vertically polarized
antennas. Large street-to-street path gain variation is found, with median
street path gain varying over 30 dB at similar distances. Coverage in the
street directly illuminated by a roof edge antenna is found to suffer an
average excess loss of 11 dB relative to free space at 200 m, with empirical
slope-intercept fit model representing the data with 7.1 dB standard deviation.
Offsetting the base antenna 5 m away from roof edge, as is common in macro
cellular deployments, introduces an additional average loss of 15 dB at 100 m,
but this additional loss reduces with distance. Around the corner loss is well
modeled by a diffraction formula with an empirically obtained diffraction
coefficient. Effective azimuthal gain degradation due to scatter is limited to
2 dB for 90% of data, supporting effective use of high gain antennas in urban
street canyons.