15 Cumulative distribution functions of the excess path loss in all buildings 16 Mean excess path loss plotted against floor number for the different carrier frequencies in buildings 11, 27, 32, 37 and 81 For further details refer to J. Medbo Path Loss in an Outdoor to Indoor et al., “Multi-Frequency Macrocellular Scenario”, EuCAP 2009, Berlin, Germany. 8.3 Average excess loss results Building entry loss can be evaluated using two methods: Loss difference indoors and outdoors at ground level: Method 1: Lout – Lin Excess loss at floor levels where building is LoS: Method 2: LFS Lin – 17 Methods for evaluation of building entry loss (left = method 1, right = method 2) Penetration loss data for LoS conditions is not available in many cases since the buildings do not reach LoS height. For such buildings (e.g. building 81), may be taken as the difference LLoS LDiff between measured loss outdoors and indoors at ground level. This was done for buildings 27, 37 and 81 (see Table 15). For buildings 27 and 37 it is possible to compare the two methods. It turns out that underestimates in these two cases. The underestimation may be explained by LDiff LLoS the fact that the outdoor loss measurements were restricted to areas around the buildings which were not facing the transmitter (see Fig. 15) and thus giving higher loss. Since is not known for LLoS building 81 the best one can do is assume = The resulting floor number where LoS LLoS LDiff. occurs, is around 9 which is consistent with visual inspection done at the transmitter location. nFlb, The present results indicate that the two methods to determine the building entry loss give similar results. The outdoor measurement method is however uncertain due to large variations in shadowing suggesting the use of whenever possible. LLoS TABLE 15 Estimates of LLoS Loss difference Frequency Loss Ground Loss Outdoors – – Building (MHz) (dB) (dB) (dB) 81 460 48 27 21 880 48 28 20 1 860 51 26 25 5 100 25 – – 37 460 38 16 22 880 38 21 17
15 Cumulative distribution functions of the excess path loss in all buildings 16 Mean excess path loss plotted against floor number for the different carrier frequencies in buildings 11, 27, 32, 37 and 81 For further details refer to J. Medbo et al., “Multi-Frequency Path Loss in an Outdoor to Indoor Macrocellular Scenario”, EuCAP 2009, Berlin, Germany. 8.3 Average excess loss results Building entry loss can be evaluated using two methods: Method 1: Loss difference indoors and outdoors at ground level: Lout – Lin Method 2: Excess loss at floor levels where building is LoS: LFS – Lin 17 Methods for evaluation of building entry loss (left = method 1, right = method 2) Penetration loss data for LoS conditions is not available in many cases since the buildings do not reach LoS height. For such buildings (e.g. building 81), LLoS may be taken as the difference LDiff between measured loss outdoors and indoors at ground level. This was done for buildings 27, 37 and 81 (see Table 15). For buildings 27 and 37 it is possible to compare the two methods. It turns out that LDiff underestimates LLoS in these two cases. The underestimation may be explained by the fact that the outdoor loss measurements were restricted to areas around the buildings which were not facing the transmitter (see Fig. 15) and thus giving higher loss. Since LLoS is not known for building 81 the best one can do is assume LLoS = LDiff. The resulting floor number where LoS occurs, nFlb, is around 9 which is consistent with visual inspection done at the transmitter location. The present results indicate that the two methods to determine the building entry loss give similar results. The outdoor measurement method is however uncertain due to large variations in shadowing suggesting the use of LLoS whenever possible. TABLE 15 Estimates of LLoS Building Frequency (MHz) Loss – Ground (dB) Loss – Outdoors (dB) Loss difference (dB) 81 460 48 27 21 880 48 28 20 1 860 51 26 25 5 100 – 25 – 37 460 38 16 22 880 38 21 17
R-REP-P.2346-2015-MSW-E.docx