Comparison of Propagation Models for Fixed
WiMAX System based on IEEE 802.16-2004
Amarasinghe K.C.∗ , Peiris K.G.A.B. ∗ , Thelisinghe L.A.D.M.D. ∗ , Warnakulasuriya G.M. ∗ , and Samarasinghe A.T.L.K.†
∗ Department of Electronic and Telecommunication Engineering, University of Moratuwa, Moratuwa, Sri Lanka
Email: {050016, 050304, 050455, 050469}@ent.mrt.ac.lk
† Department of Electronic and Telecommunication Engineering, University of Moratuwa, Moratuwa, Sri Lanka
Email: kithsiri@ent.mrt.ac.lk
Abstract— The study of empirical propagation models for
mobile channels has been done extensively, but the applicability
of those models to a Fixed Wireless Access (FWA) System is
not appropriately tested. The candidate models include Hata -
Okumura, COST 231 Hata, COST-Walfisch-Ikegami and Erceg.
From those models Erceg model seems to be the most suitable.
In this paper field measurements are taken for the 3.5GHz Fixed
WiMAX network in Katubedda, Sri Lanka. Those are used to
validate the applicability of the above mentioned propagation
models in a sub urban environment in Sri Lanka.
I. I NTRODUCTION
The knowledge of Propagation conditions is mandatory for
the development and optimization of FWA systems. Prop-
agation models help to understand the interferences in the
network, which results in developing a well structured net-
work with better quality. Those can be classified mainly into
two extremes, i.e. Fully empirical models and Deterministic
models. There are some models which have the characteristics
of both types. Those are known as Semi-empirical models.
Empirical models are based on practically measured data.
Since few parameters are used, these models are simple but
not very accurate. In this paper we consider three models
which are categorized as empirical models for macrocellular
environment. These include Hata-Okumura model, COST231
Hata model and Erceg model. On the other hand, deterministic
models are very accurate, but these need high computational
power and large number of site specific details. Those estimate
propagation of radio waves analytically. In this paper we are
not considering any model that is classified as a determin-
istic model. Some of the examples include Ray Tracing and
Ikegami model. As mentioned earlier, semi-empirical models
are based on both empirical data and deterministic aspects.
COST231 Walfisch-Ikegami model is categorized as a semi-
empirical model and this will be considered in the next
sections of this paper.
All these models estimate the mean path loss based on
parameters such as antenna heights of the transmitter and
receiver, distance between them, etc... These models have been
extensively validated for mobile networks, but applicability of
those to the FWA systems has not been tested at a large scale.
In this paper we are comparing the field measurements taken
at Katubedda, Sri Lanka with the predictions made by the
propagation path loss models. Some models that are discussed
here, have been tested earlier in Belgium [1] [2], UK [3],
Croatia [4] and Norway [5] [6] [7].
II. DATA MEASUREMENT METHODOLOGY
We used a commercially available IEEE 802.16d network
in Sri Lanka, which belongs to Dialog Broadband Networks
(DBN) Private Limited, for the field measurements. Under
the sponsorship of DBN we gathered Fixed WiMAX signal
parameters in Katubedda area in Sri Lanka.
The network has three Base Transceiver Systems (BTS) in
Katubedda area with approximately 400 customers. The ar-
rangement includes a BTS with sectoral antennas, J34216V01-
120N of Laird Technologies, in three sectors. This is a
high performance, WiMAX/Broad Band wireless, 3.5 GHz
operating, vertical polarization, 1200 antenna with 16 dBi gain.
We considered two BTSs in our field measurements. First one
which is known as Katubedda BTS was 42m above the ground
level and the other one which is known as Kaldemulla BTS
was 28m above the ground level. The channel bandwidth (BW)
of the Fixed WiMAX system can be varied between 1.25MHz
to 28MHz [8]. This network used 1.75MHz and 3.5MHz
channel BWs. The Subscriber Unit (SU) is a BreezeMAX
broadband data Customer Premises Equipment (CPE) with
17 dBi gain. It supports BPSK, QPSK, 16QAM and 64QAM
modulation schemes.
We constructed a tripod, to carry the CPE and take the
measurements easily at 3m, 4m and 5m CPE heights. A
pickup truck was used to carry the tripod with the CPE. A
dedicated software was developed to acquire signal parameters
automatically. This software detects the correct sector of the
base station and it automatically sends the signal to the CPE
to rotate to the base station’s direction. Then the rotated CPE
will be locked to the BTS’s frequency and the measurements
will be taken. The measured data is stored in a text file inside
a separate folder with the site name. Those parameters include
SNR and RSSI of Up Link and Down Link radio channels.
A Global Positioning System (GPS) was used to accurately
take the location coordinates. All measurements were taken
within a 100m to 1.5km distance range from the BTS. The
upper boundary of the distance is set by the coverage area of
the BTSs, since the antennas in the BTSs are tilted in such
a way that the coverage area is limited to a 1.5km radius.
This terrain has moderate to heavy tree density with buildings
having about 10m height on average. The Katubedda area
can be categorized as a suburban environment in Sri Lanka.
Approximately 200 field measurements were taken at 5m
height for the Katubedda BTS. Also around 100 measurements
were taken at 3m and 4m heights for the Katubedda BTS. For
the Kaldemulla BTS around 150 measurements were taken at
different locations at 5m CPE height.
III. PROPAGATION PATH LOSS MODELS
Least Square (LS) regression was taken as the basis for the
comparison of the models. Equation (1) gives the standard
equation for the LS regression. In that d refers to the distance
between BTS and CPE, d0 refers to the reference point at far
field of the base station antenna which is considered as 100m
and n refers to the path loss exponent.
P L(d) = P L(d0 ) + 10nlog10 (d/d0 ) (1)
Following empirical models were compared against the LS line
to verify the validity of those models to the data measured.
A. Hata-Okumura model
This model is best suited for large cell coverage (distances
up to 100 km) and it can extrapolate predictions in the 150 -
1500 MHz band. Also this is the widely used model for most
of the signal strength predictions in macrocellular environment
[9], [10]. Although, its frequency band is outside the band of
Fixed WiMAX, its simplicity has made it to be used widely
in propagation predictions. The path loss equation is give by
(2).
P Lurban (dB) = 69.55 + 26.16log10 (fc ) − 13.82log10 (ht )
− a(hm ) + [44.9 − 6.55log10 (ht )]log10 (d) (2)
fc is the operating frequency in MHz, ht and hm are the BTS
antenna height and the CPE height in m, d is the distance
from BTS to CPE in km and a(hm ) is the correction factor
for mobile unit antenna height in dB (3).
a(hm ) = 3.2(log10 (11.75hm ))2 − 4.97 (3)
B. COST-231 Hata model
COST 231 project is the development of the outdoor
propagation models for application in urban areas at higher
frequencies. It has extended the earlier Hata-Okumura model
to support frequencies ranging from 1500 MHz up to 2000
MHz [11]. The main advantage is that it contains corrections
for urban, suburban and rural (flat) environments. The basic
equation for path loss in dB is given by (4),
P Lurban (dB) = 46.3 + 33.9log10 (fc ) − 13.82log10 (ht )
− a(hm ) + [44.9 − 6.55log10 (ht )]log10 (d) + Cm (4)
The symbols have the same meaning as in the Hata-Okumura
model in III-A. Cm is defined as 0 dB for medium and
sub urban areas with moderate tree densities and 3 dB for
Metropotitan centers.
C. COST Walfisch-Ikegami model
This is the COST 231 proposed Walfisch and Ikigami
combined model [11]. This gives a better path loss prediction.
Characteristics of urban environment such as, height of build-
ings (hroof ) in m, width of roads (w) in m, building separation
(b) in m, and road orientation with respect to the direct radio
path (ϕ). In our analysis we have used 10m for hroof , 12m for
w, 20m for b and 630 for ϕ. The model has separate equations
for Line of Sight (LOS) and Non LOS (NLOS) conditions.
Equation (5) gives the equation for NLOS conditions, which
we used in our analysis.
P LN LOS (dB) = LF S + Lrts (wr , f, ∆hm , ϕ)
+ LM SD (∆ht , ht , d, f, bs ) (5)
LF S gives free space loss, which is defined in (8), Lrts gives
the Roof-to-street loss (9), and LM SD is the multiple screen
diffraction loss (11). ∆hm is given by (6) and ∆ht is given
by (7).
∆hm = ht − hroof (6)
∆ht = ht − hroof (7)
where ht gives base station height (m) and hroof gives the
height of the building (m).
LF S = 32.4 + 20log10 (d) + 20log10 (fc ) (8)
Lrts = −8.8 + 10log10 (fc ) + 20log10 (∆hm )
− 10log10 (w) + Lori (9)
In the above equation hm gives the CPE height in m and Lori
is the street orientation function which depends on ϕ. We used
the function (10) for this.
Lori = 4.0 − 0.114(ϕ − 55) since 550 ≤ ϕ ≤ 900 (10)
LM SD = Lbsh + ka + kd log10 (d) + kf log10 (f )
− 9log10 (b) (11)
In equation (11), Lbsh is given by (12), Ka is 54, Kd is 18,
and Kf is given by (13).
Lbsh = −18 ∗ log10 (1 + ∆ht ) (12)
Kf = −4 + 0.7((fc /925) − 1) (13)
D. Erceg model
This was developed by Erceg et al. and the experimental
data were taken in several suburban areas in New Jersey and
around Seattle, Chicago, Atlanta, and Dallas. The base antenna
heights were in the range from 12 to 79 m [12]. This has
categorized three different terrain categories. The maximum
path loss category is hilly terrain with moderate-to-heavy tree
densities (Category A), the minimum path loss category is
mostly flat terrain with light tree densities (Category C) and
the middle category can be characterized as either mostly flat
terrain with moderate-to-heavy tree densities, or hilly terrain
with light tree densities (Type B). This model is recommended
by IEEE 802.16 Broadband Wireless Access Working Group
[8]. The Path Loss in dB is given by equation (14),
P L = A + 10γlog10 (d/d0) + s ; d ≥ d0 (14)
where, A gives decibel path loss at distance d0 (15), γ gives
path loss exponent (16) and s is the shadowing component
given by (17).
A = 20log10 (4πd0 /λ) (15)
In this λ gives the wavelength in m.
γ = (a − bhb + c/hb ) + χσγ (16)
The parameter hb is the base station antenna height in meters
(80m ≥ hb ≥ 10m), χ is a zero-mean Gaussian variable of
unit standard deviation N[0,1] and a, b, c and σγ are constants
for each terrain category given by Table I.
s = yσ (17)
Fig. 1. Comparison of the measured Path Loss with Propagation Models at
5m CPE height for the Down Link
TABLE I
N UMERICAL VALUES OF THE E RCEG M ODEL PARAMETERS TABLE II
E RROR STATISTICS OF M ODEL P REDICTIONS COMPARED WITH THE
Model Parameter Terrain Type A Terrain Type B Terrain Type C R EGRESSION FIT AT 5 M CPE HEIGHT FOR THE D OWN L INK

a 4.6 4.0 3.6 Model µ σ

b 0.0075 0.0065 0.0050
(in m−1 ) Least Square 0 23.031
c 1 2.6 17.1 20.0 Erceg A 2.9767 25.5477
(in m) Erceg B 0.9180 24.9519
σγ 0.57 0.75 0.59 Erceg C 8.0789 25.8940
µσ 10.6 9.6 8.2 Free Space Loss 22.8252 32.5112
σσ 2.3 3.0 1.6 Hata 7.5525 25.2179
W-I 39.5640 46.3027
COST231 Hata 12.6101 27.1453

IV. COMPARISON WITH MEASUREMENTS FOR

THE DOWN LINK
A. Path loss analysis
For the ease of presentation we have used 5m and 3m
CPE heights in this paper. Fig.1 gives the scatter plot of the
measured path losses with the path loss plots from standard
propagation path loss models. In Table II the corresponding
error statistics in terms of the mean prediction error, µ, and
the standard deviation of the prediction errors, σ, are given
for each model plotted in Fig.1. The prediction errors are
calculated as the error between practical data collected and
the points in path loss lines of the propagation models. From
the statistical analysis in Table II we can see that the Erceg
B model, i.e. the Flat/Moderate-to-Heavy Tree density terrain
has closer µ and σ values to the Least Square Regression
Fit. Fig.2 gives the scatter plot of the measured path losses
along with the path loss plots for standard propagation path
loss models for reciever height of 3m. The corresponding error
statistics are given by the Table III. As can be seen from the
table, the best fit at 3m CPE height is the Free Space Loss
Model. This is due to the nulls obtained in that receiver level.
By analyzing the plots it is seen that the most suited model
is the Hata model. From the Erceg Model’s terrain types, the
most suited type is Erceg Type C, i.e. Flat/Light Tree Density.
It is due to the fact that such a lower CPE height sees lesser
trees compared to the 5m CPE height. As the CPE height
varies, the terrain which is seen by the CPE also varies. This
is a issue faced only in Fixed Wireless networks.
B. RSSI analysis
Fig.3 shows the Down Link(DL) measured Receiver Signal
Strength Indicator(RSSI) scatter plots at 5m CPE height with
the RSSI calculated using the standard propagation path loss
models. Fig.4 shows the DL RSSI scatter plot at 3m CPE
height with the values from propagation path loss models.
Those figures shows that all signal strength measurements
drawn in scatter plots are better than the W-I model for Path
Loss in this suburban environments. An improvement in the
RSSI can be seen with the increase in the CPE height in certain
distances well as a reduction also take when increasing height
compared to lower height levels due to the effects of foliage.
Fig.5 shows the Cumulative Distribution Function(CDF) of
the RSSI at 3m, 4m and 5m CPE heights. The values at 3m and
4m (median value of -65 and-64.1 dBm) are closer together
than those at 5 m (median value -84dBm). The received power
Fig. 2. Comparison of the measured Path Loss with Propagation Models at Fig. 3. Comparison of the measured RSSI at 5m CPE height with Propagation
3m CPE height for the Down Link Models for the Down Link

TABLE III
E RROR STATISTICS OF M ODEL P REDICTIONS COMPARED WITH THE
R EGRESSION FIT AT 3 M CPE HEIGHT FOR THE D OWN L INK

Model µ σ

LS 0 33.5043
Erceg A 20.4487 43.0340
Erceg B 16.3785 40.9087
Erceg C 11.1126 38.8335
Free Space Loss 9.8841 37.1924
Hata 23.1383 43.9185
W-I 56.1258 67.2199
COST231 Hata 28.2658 46.7561

at 5 m is considerably higher than at lower receiver heights.

C. SNR analysis
Fig.6 and Fig.7 show the SNR as a function of RSSI for
all DL measurements carried out at 5m and 3m CPE heights
respectively.
The Signal to Noise Ratio (SNR) is a better measure for
the actual operating conditions of the receiver than the RSSI
value. This is due to fact that SNR value takes into account
interference and noise conditions in addition to signal strength.
On the other hand, the SNR and RSSI values should be closely
correlated. Equation (18) shows the theoretical relationship
between the SNR and RSSI [5].
34
SN R = 5.2∗1013
(18)
(1 + 1/9
(102+RSSI)9 )
For the low RSSI values there seems to be a linear relationship
between the RSSI and SNR values as expected, where a 1 dB
increase in SNR gives a 1 dB increase in the RSSI value. For
higher RSSI values, the SNR approaches a limit mainly caused
by saturation effects in the receiver.
Fig. 4. Comparison of the measured RSSI at 3m CPE height with Propagation
Models for the Down Link
The low SNR values for relatively good RSSI values might
be caused by interference. In many situations it can be useful
to have a mathematical expression for estimating the SNR as
a function of the RSSI.
V. COMPARISON WITH MEASUREMENTS FOR THE
UP LINK
In the previous sections the analysis for the DL has been
carried out. In this section the analysis for the UL will be
done.
A. Path loss analysis
Fig.8 and Fig.9 show the comparison of the path loss models
results with the field measurements at 5m and 3m CPE height
Fig. 5. Comparison of the cumulative distribution curve for the three CPE
heights
Fig. 6. SNR plot of measured data and theoretical results at 5m CPE height
for the Down Link
respectively.
B. RSSI analysis
Fig.10 and Fig.11 show the comparison of the path loss
models results with the field measurements at 5m and 3m
CPE height respectively.
C. SNR analysis
Fig.12 show the SNR as a function of RSSI for all UL
measurements carried out at 5m height. As can be seen from
the graph related to UL, it is evident that the UL also gives
the same results as the DL. Interferences in the both channels
closely related. Hence, same conclusions as in the previous
section which is for the DL case are valid in the UL as well.
VI. CONCLUSION
In this paper propagation measurements for FWA network
operating based on IEEE 802.16d at 3.5 GHz are analyzed
Fig. 7. SNR plot of measured data and theoretical results at 3m CPE height
for the Down Link
Fig. 8. Comparison of the Path Loss with the Propagation Models at 5m
CPE height for the Up Link
and discussed. A statistical path loss model for a suburban Sri
Lankan environment is proposed. Different receiver heights are
analyzed to evaluate the effect of the CPE height differences
for the Fixed WiMAX network. The path loss exponent highly
depends upon the receiver height.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
All the results mentioned in this paper were gathered during
a project funded by Dialog Broadband Networks (Pvt)Ltd.,
Sri Lanka. All the authors like to thank Dialog Broadband
Networks for their funding and support.
Fig. 9. Comparison of the Path Loss with the Propagation Models at 3m
CPE height for the Up Link Fig. 11. Comparison of the RSSI with the theoretical values at 3m CPE
height for the Up Link

Fig. 12. SNR plot of measured data and theoretical results at 5m CPE height
Fig. 10. Comparison of the RSSI with the theoretical values at 5m CPE for the Up Link
height for the Up Link
 R EFERENCES
[1] W. Joseph, L. Roelens, and L. Martens, “Path Loss Model for Wireless
Applications at 3500 MHz,” in IEEE Antennas and Propagation Society
International Syposium with USNC/URSI National Radio Science and
AMEREM Meetings, 2006, pp 4751 - 4754
[2] W. Joseph and L. Martens, “Performance Evaluation of Broadband
Fixed Wireless System based on IEEE 802.16,” in IEEE Wireless
Communications and Networking Conference, 2006, pp 978 - 983
[3] V.S. Abhayawardhana, I.J. Wassell, D. Crosby, M.P. Sellars, and M.G.
Brown, “Comparison of Empirical Propagation Path Loss Models for
Fixed Wireless Access Systems,” in IEEE 61st Vehicular Technology
Conference, 2005, pp 73-77
[4] J. Milanovic, S. Rimac-Drlje, and K. Bejuk, “Comparison of Propagation
Models Accuracy for WiMAX on 3.5 GHz,” in IEEE International
Conference on Electronics, Circuits and Systems, 2007, pp 111-114
[5] P. Grnsund, O. Grndalen, T. Breivik, and P. Engelstad, “Fixed WiMAX
Field Trial Measurements and the derivation of a Path Loss Model,” in
M-CSC, 2007.
[6] O. Grndalen, P. Grnsund, T. Breivik, and P. Engelstaad, “Fixed WiMAX
Field Trial and Analyses,” Mobile Summit, 2007.
[7] P. Grnsund, P. Engelstaad, T. Johnsen, and T. Skeie, “The physical
performance and path loss in a fixed WiMAX deployment,” in Pro-
ceedings of the International Conference on Communication and Mobile
Computing, 2007, pp 439 -444
[8] IEEE Std. 802.16-2004, IEEE Standard for Local and Metropolitan area
networks, “Part 16: Air interface for fixed broadband wireless access
systems”, 2004.
[9] M. Hata, “Empirical formula for propagation loss in land mobile radio
services,” IEEE Transactions on Vehicular Technology, vol. VT-29, pp.
317325, September 1981.
[10] Y. Okumura, “Field strength and its variability in VHF and UHF
land-mobile radio-services,” Review of the Electrical Communications
Laboratory, vol. 16, September-October 1968.
[11] COST 231 Final Report, Digital Mobile Radio Towards Future Gener-
ation Systems, Brussels: COST Telecom Secretariat, 1999.
[12] Erceg Vinko, et al., “An Empirically Based Path Loss Model for Wireless
Channels in Suburban Environments”, IEEE Journal on selected areas
in communications, vol. 17, no. 7, pp.1205-1211, July 1999.