NAT'L INST OF STAND & TECH

A111D7 227T4L

NJST

PUBLICATIONS

NET

National Institute of

Standards and Technology

U.S. Department of Commerce

NIST Technical Note 1559

NIST Technical Note 1559

Analysis of Radio-Propagation Environments

to Support Standards Development for RFBased Electronic Safety Equipment

Kate A. Remley

William F. Young

Jacob Healy

Electromagnetics Division

National Institute of Standards and Technology

325 Broadway

Boulder, CO 80305

%*s X"^

J>

Utes o*

*"

<f

U.S. Department of Commerce

John Bryson, Secretary

National Institute of Standards and Technology

Patrick D. Gallagher, Director
Certain commercial entities, equipment, or materials may be

identified in this document in order to describe an experimental

procedure or concept adequately. Such identification is not intended to imply recommendation or endorsement by the

National Institute of Standards and Technology, nor is it intended to imply that the entities, materials, or equipment

are necessarily the best available for the purpose.

National Institute of Standards and Technology Technical Note 1559

Natl. Inst. Stand. Technol. Tech. Note 1559, 61 pages (March 2012)

CODEN: NTNOEF

U.S. Government Printing Office

Washington: 2005

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet bookstore: gpo.gov Phone: 202-512-1800 Fax: 202-512-2250

Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402-0001
Contents

Executive Summary 1 1. Introduction 4

2. Measurements of Path Loss and RMS Delay Spread 6

2.1 Wideband frequency response and path loss 9

2.2 RMS delay spread 9

3. Test Environments 11

3.1 Denver urban canyon 11

3.2 Horizon West apartment building, Boulder, Colorado 12

3.3 Republic Plaza, Denver, Colorado 14

3.4 NIST Building 27 14

3.5 NIST Building 24 16

3.6 NIST Building 1 16

3.7 Colorado Convention Center 18

4. Comparison of Channel Characteristics and RF-Based PASS Performance. 19

4.1 Analysis of measured results 19

4.2 Channel impairments and RF-based PASS performance 21

4.3 Classifying levels of attenuation 22

5. Uncertainty in Relating Path Loss to RF-Based PASS Performance 23

5.1 Small-scale fading 23

5.2 Repeatability of measurement instrumentation 25

5.3 Off-frequency estimates of path loss 26

5.4 Controlled-environment reference measurement 29

5.5 Systematic measurement-system uncertainties 31

5.6 Combined uncertainty in relating path-loss to RF-based PASS performance .. 31

6. Summary and Conclusion 32

Acknowledgements 33

References 34

Appendix A: Measured Data 36

A.1 Denver Urban Canyon 36

A. 2 Horizon West Apartment Building 37

A.3 Republic Plaza Office Building 38

A.4 NIST Building 27 39

A.5 NIST Building 24 40

A.6 NIST Building 1 Corridor 41

A.7 Colorado Convention Center 43

Appendix B: RMS Delay Spread vs. Attenuation 44

B.1 Denver Urban Canyon 44

B.2 Horizon West Apartment Building 46

B.3 Republic Plaza Office Building 48

B.4 NIST Building 27 49

B.5 NIST Building 24 50

B.6 NIST Building 1 Corridor 51

B.7 Colorado Convention Center 53

Appendix C: Path Loss 54

in

Executive Summary

The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) has been involved in a multi-year project to support the development of performance metrics and test methods for radio-frequency (RF)-based electronic safety equipment used by the publicsafety community. The work reported here focuses on side-by-side measurements of

radio-propagation environment characteristics and actual wireless-device performance

in representative emergency responder environments. Identifying the radio-channel

characteristics that significantly impair wireless-device performance in various

environments enables the development of standardized laboratory-based test methods

that simulate the conditions under which electronic safety equipment will be used in the

field. The test methods can then be incorporated into consensus standards for this

equipment.

The analysis presented here has been funded by the U.S. Department of

Homeland Security's Standards Branch. The work reported here has focused on RFbased personal alert safety systems (PASS), used by firefighters to indicate when a

firefighter is motionless or in distress. However, the methodology and analysis

presented here could easily be extended to apply to other types of wireless devices that

operate in a point-to-point mode.

In the propagation-channel studies, NIST engineers measured path loss

("attenuation") and the level of reflectivity (or "multipath," here quantified by the rootmean-square delay spread) in large public structures and environments where radio

communications could be difficult. These environments include multi-story buildings;

buildings with subterranean floors and tunnels; buildings with deep interior spaces;

those with few windows; and outdoor "urban canyons," consisting of city streets

surrounded by tall buildings. The NIST Public-Safety Communications Research Lab

has funded the measurements of the propagation channel.

To support development of standards in public-safety applications, the NIST

studies focused on the penetration of radio signals from outside to inside a given

structure (and vice versa), as opposed to outdoor-to-outdoor or within-building tests. To

simulate an incident command post, in the propagation-channel studies a transmit

antenna was positioned outside of each structure at a location representative of a

fireground configuration. The receive antenna was then placed at various discrete

locations within the environment at progressively greater distances from the transmit

antenna. At each location, the path loss and RMS delay spread were measured with a vector-network-analyzer-based measurement method that is described in Section 2. NIST propagation-channel tests have been conducted in several environments, seven

of which are described here.

RF-based PASS measurements were conducted in approximately the same

locations as the channel characterization measurements. The base-station unit was

placed at the location of the VNA transmit antenna. Portable RF-based PASS devices

were then carried to approximately the same locations where the receive antenna had

been located. At each test location, the operator of the portable PASS unit activated an

RF-based alarm, and the base-station operator noted whether the alarm was received,

not received, or received after a significant delay.
Even though RF-based PASS systems are capable of two-way communications,

the NIST tests focused on whether or not the alarm from the portable RF-based PASS

device was received by the base station, rather than whether the portable device

received an alarm signal from the base station. This is because the portable RF-based

PASS device generally transmits with a lower power than does the base station in order

to conserve battery life and, in some cases, to meet "intrinsic safety" standards for

electronic equipment. Consequently, the signal emitted from the RF-based PASS

device is typically weaker, and testing for reception of the alarm signal by the base

station represented a worse-case scenario.

We tested two different, commercially available, RF-based PASS systems, one

that operates on a licensed frequency in the 450 MHz public-safety narrowband

frequency allocation, and one that operates in the unlicensed spectrum between

902 MHz and 928 MHz. The latter system was tested alone and with one repeater unit.

At the time the tests were conducted, these were the only two RF-based PASS systems

that were commercially available in the U.S. In the meantime, other manufacturers have

implemented RF-based PASS, and we expect that use of this technology will continue

to increase.

From our analysis of the side-by-side measurements described here of the radiopropagation channel and RF-based PASS devices, we have been able to draw several

important conclusions. First, the data indicate that attenuation, rather than multipath, is the most common cause of a missed alarm for an RF-based PASS device in the

representative medium-to-large-structure, radio-propagation environments that were

studied.

A second conclusion is that there is a range of path-loss values that can be used

to roughly classify various structures as low-, medium-, and high-attenuation

environments. In low-attenuation environments (defined here as less than 100 dB path

loss at a frequency of approximately 750 MHz), RF-based PASS systems could typically

be operated successfully without a repeater. In the medium-attenuation environments

(approximately 100 dB to 150 dB of path loss), RF-based PASS systems could typically

be operated with a single repeater. In the high-attenuation environments (path loss

greater than 150 dB), we expect that RF-based PASS systems may encounter difficulty

with efficient and reliable RF transmission (using 2010 technology consisting of a basestation transceiver and portable, body-worn transceivers).

A third conclusion can be drawn by looking at the RF-based PASS performance

tests conducted in an apartment building with a cell-phone base station located on its roof. This structure did not present significant attenuation, yet both types of RF-based

PASS devices that were tested had difficulty in reliably communicating with the base

station. Radio interference, in particular from nearby high-power transmitters such as

this, can present a potentially serious obstacle to RF-based PASS transmissions.

Additional tests are being developed for measuring this impairment.

The data and corresponding discussion presented below are intended to aid in the development of laboratory-based test methods for RF-based emergency safety

equipment such as RF-based PASS devices. Such test methods developed to date

focus on inserting a controllable amount of attenuation between the portable PASS

device and the PASS base station and inserting a specified level of RF interference
between the portable and base station units. We also anticipate that additional test methods and standards will be forthcoming in the near future.
Analysis of Radio-Propagation Environments to

Support Standards Development for RF-Based

Electronic Safety Equipment

Kate A. Remley, William F. Young, Jacob Healy

Electromagnetics Division

National Institute of Standards and Technology

325 Broadway, Boulder, CO 80305

Abstract: We analyze data from NIST field tests in which radio-propagation channel

characteristics were measured at approximately the same physical locations as where

the performance of various RF-based firefighter distress beacons was tested. These

side-by-side tests were made in representative emergency responder environments,

including an apartment building, four types of office buildings, a convention center, and

an urban canyon. These environments contain propagation features that often impair

radio communications, including stairwells, basements, and rooms deep within

buildings, among others. The goal of this work is to determine appropriate performance

metrics for use in the development of laboratory-based test methods for RF-based

electronic safety equipment. For the structures we studied, we found that attenuation,

rather than multipath, plays a more significant role in determining whether or not a remote distress alarm is received outside the structure. The analysis has enabled rough

classification of structures into categories of attenuation values that can be used in

laboratory-based test methods to verify the performance of the RF-based alarm system

that we tested. The environments, tests, and measured data are discussed in detail.

Key words: attenuation; delay spread; emergency responders; firefighter

communications; multipath; public-safety radio communications; radio propagation

experiments; transfer function; urban canyon; wireless communications.

1. Introduction

Emergency responders count on reliable radio communications between

responders, who are often inside a structure, and the incident command station outside.

New wireless technology is being developed that can further increase responders'

safety and efficiency by remotely monitoring their position, status, and situational

awareness. The responder community would like to take advantage of this technology.

Because lives may depend on its performance, wireless technology used in emergency

response scenarios must generally satisfy higher levels of reliability than technology

used in the commercial sector. Even though standards currently exist for commercial

wireless devices such as cell phones, wireless local-area-networks and handheld
radios, at present few standards exist for wireless electronic safety equipment that

primarily transmits data, as opposed to voice communications.

The U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Standards Branch has tasked

researchers at the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) with providing

technical support for the development of consensus standards for these new products.

As examples, DHS, through NIST, has determined gaps in existing standards and

developed appropriate test methods for radio-frequency identification (RFID) systems

used in public safety and government applications such as tracking or inventory control

[1-3]. A second project is working with the urban search-and-rescue community to support development of standards for the wireless control of robots through ASTM

International [4-5].

Here we describe DHS-sponsored work carried out to support the National Fire

Protection Association (NFPA) in the revision of NFPA 1982: Standard on Personal

Alert Safety Systems (PASS) [6] to include RF-based PASS. A PASS is essentially a

"firefighter-down" alarm that emits a loud audible alarm when the wearer is motionless

for 30 seconds. Some PASS manufacturers now include an RF transceiver in the bodyworn PASS device to alert the incident command station. The transceiver is also

capable of receiving an order from the incident command station to evacuate. The work

presented here is expected to be applicable to other types of RF-based electronic safety

equipment as it becomes available.

The technical strategy applied to this project is to first conduct field tests to gather information on typical values of key wireless-propagation-channel parameters in representative responder locations, including high-rise buildings, urban canyons,

tunnels, apartment buildings, office buildings and other large structures where radio

communication problems are sometimes encountered. Then, researchers determine

representative values of these parameters and replicate the corresponding propagationchannel conditions in a laboratory-based, free-field test environment. The final step is to verify that the performance of a given wireless device in the laboratory is similar to that

measured in the field. This process allows development of general, laboratory-based

test methods that place the wireless device in conditions similar to those in which it will be used in the field. In this technical note, we describe field tests and analyze the

measured results to develop appropriate performance metrics and their values for

subsequent use in laboratory-based testing.

Laboratory-based test methods of RF-based emergency safety equipment

provide the advantages of accuracy, repeatability, efficiency, and, often, reduced cost,

when compared to the use of building structures and/or structure-based test beds. This

is because we can carefully control the test environment and conditions in a laboratory

while covering propagation-channel parameters measured over a wide range of building

types. For the testing of RF-based equipment, we can expose the system under test to specific levels of attenuation, interference, or multipath, reproducibly and with known

uncertainty.

However, reducing the complex, highly variable radio-propagation environment to a laboratory environment is extremely challenging. The approach taken here is typical of

those reported in the literature [7-12]. Data were collected in several representative

environments and then processed to extract the values of key parameters relevant to our specific end use.
It has been necessary for NIST to perform measurements as part of this project

because much of the data that were previously published in the literature describe tests

made to support commercial applications such as cellular telephone communications,

where a base station provides coverage to a wide area, rather than the point-to-point,

pedestrian-height scenarios utilized in many RF-based emergency scenarios. Most of

the propagation-channel data analyzed here was collected in support of projects funded

by NIST's Public Safety Communications Research Laboratory, in the NIST Office of

Law Enforcement Standards [13-16 and the NIST Technical Notes referenced therein].

As mentioned above, one important goal of the study presented here was to analyze the performance of the RF-based PASS systems under the same conditions

that the channel characterization tests were conducted. In the following sections, we

discuss various aspects of our measurements that contribute to the uncertainty in the

results of the measurement comparison. These aspects include: (a) the use of one

frequency band for channel characterization, while the RF-based PASS systems

operate in other bands, (b) the fact that the locations of the measurements were not

identical, and (c) the use of reference measurements made in locations other than the

field tests. Because of such nonidealities in our measurements, in some cases the

performance of the RF-based PASS system disagrees with what is expected

theoretically. However, certain trends are clearly indicated from the data, allowing us to

identify representative values of attenuation and multipath for the development of

laboratory-based test methods.

In Section 2, we describe the measurement system and data-processing

algorithms that we used in the RF-propagation-channel characterization measurements.

In Section 3, we describe the various environments in which the measurements were

made. Section 4 contains the analysis, including a summary of the results of our measurements and a discussion of the relationship between RF-based PASS

performance and propagation-channel characteristics. In Section 5, we discuss the

assumptions and approximations that were made in measuring and analyzing the data

and how they affect the uncertainty in relating RF-based PASS performance to propagation-channel characteristics. In Appendix A, we present a complete summary of

the data that were collected in each environment, and in Appendix B, we present graphs

that relate the success or failure of RF-based PASS transmissions to both attenuation

and multipath.

2. Measurements of Path Loss and RMS Delay Spread

The goal of our analysis of the wireless-propagation-channel characterization

measurements was to determine representative values of the key impairments to

successful transmission of alarm signals from RF-based PASS systems. The two

physical channel characteristics focused on in this study are attenuation (path loss) and

multipath (reflectivity). Knowledge of the former is essential because the path loss, or reduction in signal strength experienced by a signal as it penetrates and travels through

a structure, will directly impact the ability of an emergency responder to receive a signal

from the incident command post, or vice versa. The level of multipath was also studied.

In reflective environments, signals may travel from the transmitter to the receiver along

multiple paths by way of signal bounces off metallic or other reflective surfaces. As a
result, multiple copies of the signal may arrive at the receiver over a range of times. This

effect may be described through a metric called root-mean-square (RMS) delay spread.

For digitally modulated signals in particular, the self-interference arising from the

multiple delayed copies of a signal can degrade the ability of the receiver to demodulate

the received signal properly. Also, destructive interference may occur between signals

following the various paths. The latter effect is termed fading.

To characterize both attenuation and multipath, we measured the wideband

frequency response and time-delay characteristics of the outside-to-inside RF

propagation channel with a measurement system based on a vector network analyzer

(VNA), shown in Figure 2.1 below. This instrument collects data over a frequency range

on the order of a communications channel (or wider) by stepping through frequencies

one at a time. This system, described in more detail in [14], lets us measure the

complex transfer function of the wireless-propagation channel as a function of

frequency. In the field tests of [15, 16], data were typically acquired over a very wide

frequency band (100 MHz to 18 GHz). We analyzed subsets of these data for the

present report.

The procedure for the propagation-channel transfer function measurements is described in the following subsection. From the Fourier transform of the measured

transfer function, the power delay profile (the received power as a function of time) and

RMS delay spread of the channel were found in post processing. Our data cover

several tens of megahertz, which is adequate to provide an estimate of the power delay

profile over the bandwidths of interest. Because this range of frequencies is significantly

wider than that of most modulated signals, we refer to these measurements as wideband.

The VNA acts as both transmitter and receiver in this system. The signal is amplified and fed to a transmit antenna, as shown in Figure 2.1. The signal propagates

through the radio channel to the receive antenna. To characterize the one-way radio

propagation channel, the received signal is returned to the VNA via a fiber-optic cable,

where it is acquired and stored for post processing. The use of the fiber-optic cable

eliminates the additional loss that would be introduced with a coaxial cable on the return

path. One advantage of this system is that it provides a high dynamic range when

compared to true time-domain-based measurement instruments. This is important

because we typically measure weak signals in these experiments. One disadvantage is that a time-varying channel may change during the long acquisition period.

In Figure 2.1, the system is configured for a line-of-sight (LOS) reference

measurement. In practice, the transmit and receive antennas may be separated by

significant distances, although they must remain tethered together by the fiber-optic link. In the system we used, we could attain link distances up to 200 m. We conducted two sets of measurements: One set over a "low"-frequency band

that ranged from 100 MHz to 1.2 GHz; and one set over a "high"-frequency band, that

ranged from 1 GHz to 18 GHz. The low-band measurements covered the operating

frequencies of the PASS devices we tested, which operate in the 450 MHz and

900 MHz bands, and these data are used in the analysis that follows. The complete set

of data may be found in [1 5].

For the propagation-channel characterization measurements, we used

omnidirectional discone transmit and receive antennas. Omnidirectional antennas are
often used with RF-based PASS base stations. The vertical beamwidth of the

omnidirectional antennas is approximately 40 ° to 50 °. Identical antennas were used at

transmit and receive sites.

Receiving antenna

Transmitting antenna

1.6 m

Port 1 Port4

\ RF Optical '200 m\

Optical Fiber

Figure 2.1: Wideband measurement system based on a vector network analyzer. Frequencydomain measurements of the complex RF propagation channel are facilitated by use of the optical

fiber link. The measured data are transformed to the time domain in post-processing. Use of this system enables determination of path loss, time-delay spread, and other figures of merit important

in characterizing modulated-signal transmissions.

To make a measurement, the VNA is first calibrated by use of standard

techniques where known impedance standards are measured. The calibration enables

correction for the response of the fiber-optic system, amplifiers, and any other passive

elements and electronics used in the measurement. We also used a high-pass filter in post processing our measurements to suppress a large, low-frequency oscillation that occurs in the optical fiber link. Because the received signals measured during our field

tests tend to be weak, an amplifier is used. Consequently, during calibration of the VNA,

an attenuator is inserted in the "thru" calibration-standard path. This extra attenuation is corrected for in post processing the path-loss measurements. The value of the

attenuator used is noted in each data set given in Appendix A.

For the measurements reported here, the VNA-based measurement system was

set up with the following parameters: the initial output power was set to approximately

-14 dBm. The gain of the amplifier and the optical link and the system losses resulted in a received power level at the VNA of no more than dBm. An intermediate-frequency

(IF) averaging bandwidth of around 1 kHz was used to average the received signal. The

number of points varied for different measurements, but we generally aimed for a frequency spacing of 1 MHz to capture key propagation-channel response effects. The

dwell time was approximately 20 us per point. We next describe how the data acquired

from the VNA measurements were processed to provide path loss and RMS delay

spread.
2.1 Wideband frequency response and path loss

Our wideband measurements provide a complex channel transfer function H(f),

where H(f) was given by the measured transmission parameter S2 i(0- Impedance

mismatch was not considered, based on the assumption of well-matched antennas. To

find the frequency-dependent path loss between the transmit and receive antennas, we

first compute \H(f)\

2/\Hr (f)\ 2

, where HT {f) is a free-space reference transfer-function

measurement made a known distance dT from the transmit antenna. The use of a ratio

to find the path loss enables us to correct for the transmit and receive antenna

responses. Because these antenna responses are common to both the reference and

the measurement, dividing one by the other removes the antenna effects from the

measurement. We next correct the measurements for the free-space path loss between

the transmit antenna and the reference location by dividing \Hr {f)\ 2 by (4ndr/X)C!, where

X is the free-space wavelength at the frequency of interest. If this correction were not

made, the measured path loss would be artificially reduced by the free-space path loss

corresponding to distance dr. The reference transfer function may be acquired either during field tests or from a

laboratory measurement. For the measurement data presented in Appendix A,

laboratory reference measurements were used, and the reference measurement

distance dr is noted for each case. Based on the above discussion, we calculate free-space path loss from our VNA

measurements as (all quantities expressed in decibels):

Path Loss = 10*log 10 (|H(0| 2/|Hr (/)| 2

) + (cal. attenuator value) + 10*logi (47tdA)Cf. (2.1)

2.2 RMS delay spread

Root-mean-square (RMS) delay spread is calculated from the power-delay profile

of a measured signal [17-19]. Figure 2.2 shows the power-delay profile for a typical

building propagation measurement. The peak level usually occurs when the signal

arrives at the receiving antenna, although sometimes the received signal builds up

gradually to the peak value and then falls off (the latter behavior is indicative of a

reverberant environment). Note that the dynamic range value and, consequently, the

threshold value, may change for low levels of received signal. The following equation is used to define the RMS delay spread, <rT

:

,Ftf- (2.2)

In (2.2), ris defined as the average value of the power-delay profile in the defined

dynamic range window and f2 is the variance of the power-delay profile within this

window.
Peak level

Figure 2.2: Power-delay profile for a building propagation measurement. Important parameters for a measured signal are the peak received signal power level, the maximum dynamic range (the difference in decibels between the peak and threshold values), the mean delay (the delay corresponding to the

average value of received signal power above the chosen threshold), and the RMS delay spread (the

second central moment of the received signal power above the threshold).

We find the RMS delay spread from the measured complex channel transfer

function as follows. First, transfer functions were windowed with a Hamming window to

reduce delay-domain sidelobes. This technique is often employed to process VNA

measurements. Then, the windowed transfer functions were inverse-Fouriertransformed to obtain bandpass channel impulse responses. These bandpass channel

impulse responses were then downconverted and low-pass filtered with a fifth-order

elliptic filter to suppress the image frequencies. For a channel impulse response

denoted h(r, tj), the corresponding f

h ("instantaneous") power delay profile (PDP) was

computed as Pj(r)=\h(r, ti)\ 2

, where x denotes the decay time and t denotes the time at which the measurement was taken.

When multiple measurements were available from a particular site, we took the

average of the instantaneous power delay profiles to compute the RMS delay spread.

When only a single measurement was available, we found the "instantaneous" RMS

delay, which provides a rough approximation of the RMS delay spread.

A common rule of thumb is to calculate the RMS delay spread from signals at

least 10 dB above the noise floor of the measurement. The "noise floor" data in the

graphs that follow were collected by terminating the transmitting port of the VNA in a 50 Q load, so that the receiving port measured only background ambient signals. For

the measurements described in the following sections, we used the method described in [16] to determine the useful dynamic range of each measurement. Where insufficient

dynamic range existed, no RMS delay spread was calculated (represented by "N/A" in the tables of Appendix A).

Path loss (derived from the propagation-channel transfer function) and multipath

(quantified by RMS delay spread), are two key propagation-channel characteristics that are predictive of the performance of wireless devices. These characteristics are analyzed in Section 4 for the various environments described in Section 3. A third
propagation-channel characteristic, interference, will be tested and discussed in future

work. Measurement uncertainty is discussed in Section 5.

3. Test Environments

We provide a brief overview of the environments and conditions in which radiopropagation-channel measurements were made and RF-based PASS systems were

tested. The positions where the tests were conducted are marked on diagrams of each

building, and are the same for both systems unless so noted. Photographs are provided

to give the reader an indication of the characteristics of each environment. More

information on these radio-propagation channel measurements can be found in NIST

Technical Notes 1552 [15] and 1557 [16]. The environments are ordered with the

environments presenting the lowest path loss first.

3.1 Denver urban canyon

Measurements were taken outdoors in the financial district of downtown Denver

on two successive Saturdays in June, 2009. This area contains many buildings of over 20 stories. Figure 3.1(a) shows an illustration of the test area constructed from a Google

map view. 1 Street widths were on the order of 20 m. For the VNA measurements, three

transmitter (TX) locations and twelve receiver (RX) locations were tested, resulting in 36

sets of measurements [15]. RF PASS tests were carried out with the base stations

located at the TX1 and TX2 sites. People and cars were moving through the test location during the measurements.

Results are presented here for six receive antenna locations for transmitter sites

1 and 2. Figure 3.1(b) shows a photograph of the VNA system low-band and high-band

receive antennas located at position R5 on the corner of Welton and 17th Streets. The

diagram in Figure 3.1(c) shows that the LOS distances ranged from 10 m to 80 m, with

non-line-of-sight (NLOS) distances placed every 10 m past R5.

© 2009 Google. Map Data © 2009 Tele Atlas.

II
&

*fc -//

(a)

»

A/otes

ij Drawing not to scale

2) All distances in meters

LEGEND

j Transmitter (1,2, or 3) X Receive location C*) Wideband measurement location

Figure 3.1: Denver urban canyon, (a) The path taken in the NIST measurements was down one block

and around the corner, (b) Photograph of the wideband channel-characterization measurement

system, (c) Locations of each measurement point.

12
3.2 Horizon West apartment building, Boulder, Colorado

The 12-story Horizon West apartment building in Boulder, Colorado is shown in Figure 3.2(a) and (b). The building is constructed of reinforced concrete, steel, and brick

with standard interior finish materials. The building was fully furnished and occupied

during the experiments. Measurements were performed during daytime hours and, as a

result, people were moving throughout the building during the experiments.

The VNA transmit antenna and RF PASS base-station site was located

approximately 60 m from the building, shown near the bottom of the diagrams in Figs.

3.2(c) and (d). The test positions are also shown in Figures 3.2(c) and (d). These

measurements were acquired approximately every 5 m down the main hallways, as

indicated in the figure, on Floors 2 and 7 of the building.

g

wM nOB

^s

**m

Mi (a)

Floor 2 »—i—i—i ii i i i ii i i—i i i i—i i i i 1. 1 i i i i i i i

5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13

Elevators TT

legend:

system 1 system 2 with repeater system 2 without repeater • good communication

delayed communication

Floor 7

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I i I I I

5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 •• • •

Elevators

3 ;.

legend:

system 1 system 2 with repeater system 2 without repeater • good communication

delayed communication

(c) (d)

Figure 3.2: (a) 12-story apartment building Horizon West, (b) Inside on Floor 7. (c) Test positions on

Floor 2. (d) Test positions on Floor 7. Blue squares indicate a delay in the reception of the alarm

signal. Green circles indicate reception without significant delay.

13
3.3 Republic Plaza, Denver, Colorado

The Republic Plaza is a 57-story office building in downtown Denver, shown in Figure 3.3(a). The construction materials are a typical combination of concrete and

steel. The exterior is a combination of glass and metal. The interior building materials

consist of metal framing, drywall, and trim, with stone finishes in the lobby. The lobby is shown in Figure 3.3(b), and the 10th floor, which was in the process of renovation, is shown in Figure 3.3(c).

The VNA transmit site and RF PASS base station, depicted in the sketch of

Figure 3.3(d), were located on the 17th Street side, approximately 10 m from the

building. This location was intended to simulate the location of a command vehicle in an

emergency response scenario.

Pink numbers on the sketch show the locations within the building where testing

was conducted. The vertically stacked numbers indicate testing conducted in a stairwell.

The highest floor tested was the tenth floor.

! (b)

17

29 10th

5th

2nd

V. 'X.

--- _H>W)V. East

Figure 3.3: (a) 57-story Republic Plaza

office building in downtown Denver, CO.

(b) Main lobby and (c) tenth floor, (d) Test

positions on the first 10 floors of the

building. The pink numbers show the

locations of the propagation-channel

measurements and the green and red dots

show the RF-based PASS performance.

VNA measurement test locations are in pink

(d)
3.4 NIST Building 27

This structure consists of a small concrete building above ground connected by a subterranean tunnel to a small room. The front building consists of a room

approximately 5.5 m (18.0 ft) wide and 7.1 m (23.3 ft) deep, shown in the photograph of

Figure 3.4(a). There are two small windows in the main room. The room is used for

storage and contains many boxes of electronics equipment, as shown in Figure 3.4(b).

The room is connected to a much smaller room by a 24.5 m (80.4 ft) long tunnel, as shown in Figure 3.4(c). The tunnel and small room at the end, which is 3 m x 3 m (9.8 ft x 9.8 ft), are below ground and used to access the NIST open-area test site. The

diagram in Figure 3.4(d) shows the dimensions of the building and the test positions.

\

© (^"NL

5.5 m @

®

Ceiling height 2.4 m _L dJ

"

24.5 m

1.2ITIQ

U

7.1 m

» ~f \ -Hn^

Q VNA Transmitter Location ci

(3> VNAReceiver Location

3 m

(d)

Figure 3.4: NIST Building 27. A small concrete main building ((a) outside and (b) inside) is connected

through a tunnel (c) to a small room. The test positions are shown in (d).

15
3.5 NIST Building 24

This building consists of offices and laboratories, including a large semi-anechoic

antenna test chamber approximately 25 m x 6 m. The building footprint is approximately

30 m x 30 m. The building is constructed of cinder block, concrete, and steel, as shown

in Figure 3.5(a). There are few windows except in the offices and storage spaces. There

are two levels above ground with offices and lab space. The building has a large, open,

unfinished basement. This structure is similar to many small office buildings that may be

encountered by emergency responders.

The VNA transmit antenna and RF PASS base station were set up immediately

outside the building on the picnic table shown in Figure 3.5(b). Tests were conducted by

entering the building at the door marked Position 1 in Figure 3.5(c), turning left and

going down the stairs to the basement, walking to various sites throughout the

basement (positions 2-7), including into an elevator at the end of a hallway, ascending

the stairs (position 8), and walking down a corridor to the original entry position

(positions 9 and 10).

Building 24

m=

43m <•»

©

JA ©1

\

J

*

1^ —— IB His

Key:

Ground le-.el v*alis

Basenvont le.«l w*fe G & 8 loci walls

OulsxJe walls

Stairs

(c)

Figure 3.5. NIST Building 24: (a) A two-story concrete building with a basement, (b) The VNA transmit

antenna and RF-based PASS base station were set up on the picnic table, (c) Building layout and test positions on the first floor and basement.
3.6 NIST Building 1 This building is referred to as the Radio Building at the NIST laboratories in Boulder, CO. The building is constructed of reinforced concrete and is basically a fourstory building consisting of six "wings" branching perpendicular to a main spine. Each

wing consists of a corridor with a single lab or office on either side, as shown in Figure

3.6(a). The building is built on a hillside, and consequently, some locations in the

building are below ground level. Measurements were made on the third-floor hallway

called "Wing 4," continuing around the corner on the "main spine." The measurements

were performed during the week in the daytime hours and, as a result, people were

moving throughout the building during the experiments.

Two VNA transmit antenna/RF-based PASS base-station sites were assembled

as shown in Figure 3.6(b). The site at Wing 4 was located on the loading dock, which is on the same level as Wing 4, while the site at Wing 6, shown in Figure 3.6(b), was

approximately 10 m from the building and one level higher than Wing 4. Measurements

were performed at the 18 locations indicated in Figure 3.6(c).

Corridor Tests:

• PASS device carried down corridor: straight and L paths

• Alarms sent/received every 50 feet

• Base Station in two locations

AV

© (14) (13) AY

'40 ft' 50 ft 50 ft'

av

Wing

* © • © ® © G

®

©

(18)

(c)

AV

TT9ft

50ft 5°ft 'soft

50 ft Wing

6

Figure 3.6: NIST Building 1. (a) Wing 4 hallway where test positions 1-7 were located, (b) Transmitter

outside Wing 6, denoted by the yellow box in the diagram of (c). Tests were conducted with the RF-based

PASS base station located at the end of Wing 4.

17
3.7 Colorado Convention Center

This massive three-level structure is constructed of reinforced concrete, steel,

and standard interior finish materials, as shown in Figures 3.7(a) and (b). The exterior of

the building is a combination of glass, metal, and concrete. Test positions are shown in Figures 3.7(c) and (d). As shown in Figure 3.7(d), the convention has a basement and

two above-ground levels. Measurements were conducted when the convention center

was empty of people.

The VNA transmit antenna and RF-based PASS base station were located

approximately 10 m from the entrance on the Speer Boulevard side, shown by the

yellow box labeled "RX" in Figure 3.6(c). PASS testing was conducted only at the

positions marked by a letter in a green square. The channel measurements were made

at the positions marked by a number in a yellow circle. Only one of the PASS systems

was tested at the convention center location.

(a) (b)

Figure 3.6: Colorado Convention Center, (a) Exterior, showing the location where the base station was

positioned, (b) Interior, showing the large open spaces that were prevalent within the structure, (c) Top

view of the test positions, including distances marked in the legend, (d) Three-dimensional view

showing the main floor and basement.
4. Comparison of Channel Characteristics and RF-Based PASS

Performance

In this section, we compare the results of the NIST measurements of path loss

and RMS delay spread to the performance tests of the RF-based PASS made at approximately the same positions. This comparison is intended to allow us to identify

representative values of propagation-channel characteristics for lab-based test methods

of RF-based PASS and other RF-based electronic safety equipment. We extract from

the measured VNA data the attenuation (path loss) and RMS delay spread (multipath)

at the positions noted in the previous section for the various representative firefighter

environments. Tables of these data are presented in Appendix A. In each table we note

whether the RF-based PASS transmission was successful, experienced a delay

(defined as a delay of more than one minute), or failed (defined as a delay greater than

one minute).

In Section 4.1, we provide a brief summary of the data from the various

environments discussed above. In Section 4.2, we study whether multipath or attenuation is the more critical impairment in a given environment for the successful

transmission of an RF-based PASS alarm. To aid in this analysis we plot the RMS delay

spread vs. path loss at each location within an environment in Appendix B. We indicate

on each graph whether or not the RF-based PASS transmission was successful.

Identifying which mechanisms have the most impact on PASS performance allows us to

prioritize development of test methods.

In Section 4.3 we further analyze the data to classify propagation-channel

environments in terms of measured levels of path loss and multipath. For each

classification, we extract representative values of attenuation for laboratory-based RFPASS testing.

The data presented below describe RF-based PASS performance with and

without repeaters, at two different frequencies of operation, in various propagationchannel environments. The primary uncertainties in comparing our measured path loss

data to device performance are assessed in the uncertainty analysis of Section 5. Even

though the uncertainty is rather high, certain trends are clearly seen from the data, as

discussed below.

4.1 Analysis of measured results

Here we summarize some of the key aspects of the measured data collected in various radio-propagation environments. As in Section 3, the order of the environments

is based on lowest-to-highest path loss. Consult the tables in Appendix A and the

graphs in Appendix B for more information.

We plot the RMS delay spread vs. path loss at each location within a structure in Appendix B. The success of an RF PASS transmission is indicated by a blue circle, the

failure of a transmission (defined as a delay of three minutes or more) by a red x, and a

significant delay (over one minute) by a green diamond.

• Denver urban canyon - down street, around one corner: This was the only

outdoor-to-outdoor environment studied. Measured path loss was between 45 dB

19
and 90 dB, but the RMS delay spread was as high as approximately 210 ns. The

PASS devices operated successfully in this environment, except in two

measurement locations, both having moderate path loss and RMS delay spread.

Horizon West - 12-story apartment building, Floors 2 and 7: The path loss

due to building penetration in this environment was not high, between 68 dB and

90 dB, and the RMS delay spread was less than -55 ns on Floor 2 and -80 ns on Floor 7. However, the RF-based PASS transmissions were generally not

successfully received by the base station, with the exception of the 450 MHz

system on Floor 7 locations, due to a cell-phone base station located on the roof

of the apartment building. The strong cell-phone signal appears to have disrupted

the RF-based PASS transmission, even when a repeater was deployed. The

interference to both the portable unit and the repeater caused complete

disruption of the transmission, as shown in Appendix A.2.

Republic Plaza - 57 story office building, Floors 1-10 including stairwell:

The plots of RMS delay spread vs. path loss in Appendix B clearly show that

attenuation, not multipath, was the dominant channel impairment in this

environment. When repeaters were used, reception was improved. The RMS

delay spread values ranged from 50 ns to 400 ns.

Note that the path loss values reported in the graph (-70 dB to 115 dB,

confirmed by comparison to the single-frequency measurements shown in Figure

5.3 below and in [15]) are actually too small to cause the RF-based PASS to

consistently fail. In the NIST lab, the RF-based PASS devices failed to

successfully transmit an alarm at an attenuation level between approximately

100 dB and 135 dB, depending on the device. For the results shown in Figure

B.3, we expect that the PASS base station antennas were not reoriented for

maximum gain with respect to the remote units on the higher floors. The base

station antennas have an elevation-dependent gain pattern. Consequently, the

absolute values of path loss presented here have a higher uncertainty in the

path-loss value at which the PASS communication fails. However, the results do

clearly show that, even for the relatively high multipath in this structure (up to

400 ns RMS delay spread), attenuation was the primary cause of failure, as opposed to multipath.

NIST Building 27 - small main building connected by long subterranean

tunnel to small back room: Path-loss values ranged from around 85 dB to 100 dB, and RMS delay spread was generally low, but in one case it jumped to

250 ns, probably because of multipath in the front building before the signal

propagated down the hall to the receiver. PASS measurements were not made in this structure.

NIST Building 24 - office/lab building with basement: Measured path-loss

values ranged from 95 dB to 115 dB. The attenuation in the basement was

higher than 115 dB, but we were unable to measure it due to limited dynamic

range of the VNA test set-up. In fact, the dynamic range was low enough that we

20
were not able to use the outside-to-inside data to calculate the RMS delay

spread except for one point. The RMS delay spread here was -40 ns.

• NIST Building 1 - office/lab building with long, part-subterranean corridor:

Measured path-loss values in this structure ranged from 100 dB to 140 dB and

the RMS delay spread values were less than 100 ns. We were able to acquire

meaningful data only at locations nearest the transmitter, because there was

insufficient dynamic range to acquire path loss and RMS delay spread data. We

expect that the path loss is significantly higher deeper inside the building. Where

there was not enough dynamic range to calculate the RMS delay spread, we

plotted it as zero. Because of the short RMS delay spread and large value of

attenuation, we expect that attenuation is the primary failure mechanism in this

environment for the RF-based PASS devices.

• Colorado Convention Center - main entry, one corridor, and downstairs:

The measured path loss in this large structure was between 80 dB and 160 dB,

and the RMS delay spread varied up to 180 ns. However, our measurement

instruments had insufficient dynamic range far into the building, so we anticipate

that the path loss was much higher than this. Path loss data were collected only

to a lower frequency of 1 GHz. Because the path loss was calculated at this

frequency and because a horn antenna (which is more directional than the RFbased PASS omnidirectional antenna) was used on the transmit side, relating

RF-based PASS performance to values of path loss is difficult. Due to time

constraints, we were able to measure only the 450 MHz RF-based PASS in this

environment. RF-based PASS transmissions were received for a path loss of

roughly ("roughly" for the reasons given above) 145 dB.

4.2 Channel impairments and RF-based PASS performance

For the environments we studied, the graphs in Appendix B clearly show that

attenuation (path loss) is the dominant failure mechanism for the RF-based PASS

system. In almost every case, there is a direct correlation between an increasing path

loss and the failure of the RF-based PASS device transmission. Conversely, there

seems to be little correlation between RMS delay spread and success or failure of the

RF-based PASS. However, most of the environments we studied had relatively short

values of 200 ns or less for RMS delay spread.

We conclude that, in the absence of external RF interference, lab-based tests

that provide methods for testing RF-based PASS in a controlled attenuation

environment will predict device performance in the majority of real-world firefighter

environments. Tests utilizing various values of attenuation could be used to verify

device performance in environments having the attenuation classifications listed in the

table above.

Additional field tests and analysis should be conducted to determine the level of

multipath in highly reflective environments such as factories, utility installations, and

other manufacturing environments. Additional laboratory-based tests should be

developed if it is found that these environments affect RF-based PASS performance.

21
Also, it is critical that interference tests be developed, because of the potential for RF

interference to interrupt the RF-based PASS transmission, even when the size and

composition of the environment should present no problem to successful reception.

4.3 Classifying levels of attenuation

Most of the environments we tested exhibited at least 50 dB of attenuation,

created by the penetration of signals from outside-to-inside a structure (or vice versa), or the distance between transmit and receive antennas. Only the outdoor urban canyon

environment and the shallow apartment building had maximum attenuation values less

than 100 dB. We expect that typical house structures, small commercial buildings (such as small stores in strip malls and office buildings with exterior-facing offices) and smallto-moderate sized apartment buildings (in which all apartments have an exterior wall)

would provide an environment where the total signal attenuation is less than 100 dB.

We will classify this type of structure as "low attenuation," as shown in Table 4.1. With

current (2012) technology, an individual RF-based PASS unit (no repeater) can operate

successfully in these environments, unless external radio interference is experienced, as was the case in the Horizon West apartment building measurements.

Most of the environments we studied had maximum attenuation values between

100 dB and 150 dB, which we classify in Table 4.1 as "medium attenuation." We expect

that the attenuation values in the Republic Plaza building and in the NIST Building 27

were on this order. We expect that moderate-sized structures such as small hospitals,

and moderate-sized and tall commercial, office, and apartment buildings would provide

an environment with attenuation between 100 dB and 150 dB. As can be seen in Appendix B, with current RF-based PASS technology, the use of a repeater can often

overcome this level of attenuation.

Very large structures and those with subterranean floors, even of small size, can

be expected to provide attenuation greater than 150 dB, which we classify as "high

attenuation" in Table 4.1. NIST Buildings 24 and 1, and the convention center had such

high levels of attenuation. We expect that multiple repeaters would need to be used in such environments, for current RF-based PASS technology. A summary of proposed

path-loss classification is provided in the table below. As noted above, the RMS delay

spread in the environments we studied did not exceed 200 ns. As a consequence, our

classification focuses on attenuation rather than multipath. We expect that in a large

factory environment, multipath may become a more significant problem.

22
Table 4.1: Classification of structures in terms of attenuation due to building signal

penetration.

Classification Attenuation (dB) Typical structures Current PASS

Low Less than 100

Houses, small

buildings with

exterior-facing rooms

Single unit

Medium 100 to 150

Moderate-sized and

tall structures with

some interior rooms

With repeater

High Over 150

Very large structures

and those with

subterranean floors

Multiple repeaters

5. Uncertainty in Relating Path Loss to RF-Based PASS Performance

Our analysis relates measured path loss and RMS delay spread to the

performance of various RF-based PASS systems. In this section, we provide an

estimate of the uncertainties in our path-loss measurements, combined with the

additional systematic error arising from the use of path-loss measurements made in the

750 MHz frequency band (ranging from 725 MHz to 800 MHz), when the RF-based

PASS systems operate in the 450 MHz (ranging from 400 to 500 MHz) or 900 MHz

(ranging from 902 MHz to 928 MHz) frequency bands. We focus on the uncertainty in path loss because our analysis indicated it was the primary cause of failure in RF-based

PASS transmissions.

Following the convention described in [20], the uncertainties associated with the

measurement and estimation of path loss can be broken into two categories: Type A

(evaluated by statistical means) and Type B (evaluated by non-statistical means).

Contributions associated with time and location variation in the channel and the

repeatability of the measurement instrumentation are described with Type A techniques.

Systematic effects are described with Type B methods. These include errors in estimates of path loss at 450 MHz and 900 MHz with measured path-loss data acquired

at 750 MHz, the use of reference measurements made in a controlled environment

rather than at the field site, and drift of the measurement instrumentation. We describe

these effects below, and then calculate the combined expected uncertainty in our

estimation of path loss due to these contributions.

5.1 Small-scale fading

A key source of random, Type A, uncertainty in our estimate of the path loss can

be attributed to small-scale fading, often called channel variability in the literature.

Small-scale fading occurs from multiple frequency-, time-, and position-dependent

reflections in the local area around each test location. Even though a building

environment is fixed and measurements made there would be deterministic, small-scale

fading is considered random due to its extreme sensitivity to antenna placement and the

23
fact that cars, trucks, and pedestrians move randomly through the environment during

measurement.

Small-scale fading manifests itself as rapidly varying noise-like peaks and nulls in the received signal strength. This type of fading is superimposed upon a "large-scale"

mean value, where the mean is typically calculated over frequency, time, and/or a local

position of one or two wavelengths. An example of small-scale fading as a function of

frequency can be seen in Figure 5.1(a) and (b), where the top curves show the

propagation-channel transfer function and the bottom curves show the noise floor of the

measurement (described on p. 14). Increasing the number of measurements over a

local area, over time, or over an increasing number of frequencies will typically reduce

the uncertainty due to small-scale fading on an estimate of the path loss.

300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 Frequency (MHz)

(a)

-20

-30

TX1 to RX5

|H(f)| 2 (mean) = -46 dB

_-40 s

~-50

3^-60

-70

v

•-•••/ £V v\/ Mean |H(f)| 2

- —Mean |N(f)| 2

Std Dev|H(f)|2 A

-80 » a / TM\ / Vr»

730 740 750 760 770 780 790 800 Frequency (MHz)

(b)

Figure 5.1: Propagation-channel transfer function measurements measurements made in the Denver

urban canyon [16]. The lower red curves in the graphs show the "noise floor." Graph (a) shows the

frequency range from 300 MHz to 1 GHz. The large spikes correspond to interference from radio

signals present in the environment. Interferers can be seen in the mid-400 MHz band and the 900 MHz

band. Graph (b) shows a representative measurement (one of 36) in the 725 MHz to 800 MHz band

used for the path loss calculations. Nine measurements were taken at each transmit/receive antenna

location in the 750 MHz band by moving the tranmit antenna on a 0.5 m x 0.5 m grid. These

measurements were repeated once. The mean and standard deviation of the 18 measurements are

indicated in the figure.

Measurements made in the Denver urban canyon (described in more detail in Section 3 and [16]) allow us to estimate the uncertainty in our estimate of path loss due

to small-scale fading. For these measurements, the mean path loss at each of 12

receive antenna locations was estimated from 18 measurements (two measurements at

each of nine antenna-positioner locations per receive site). An example of data from

one receive site is shown in Figure 5.1(b), where we have plotted the mean of 18

measurements as a function of frequency. The standard deviation of these 18

measurements is also shown.

To estimate the uncertainty in the path loss, we first found the standard deviation

at each of the nine antenna positioner locations over the frequency band 725 to 800 MHz (75 frequencies in 1 MHz frequency increments). We then calculated the

standard deviation of these values over all nine antenna-positioner locations, including

24
the second, repeat measurement. These two standard deviations, labeled "spacing" and

"freq" are provided in Table 2.2. We see that the "combined" standard deviation for each

receive antenna location in Table 2.2 is generally between 5 dB and 6 dB. When we

combine all 36 values (12 receive antenna locations x three transmit antenna locations),

we obtain an uncertainty i/fading in an estimate of path loss made at a single location due

to small-scale fading of 5.7 dB.

Table 2.2: Standard deviation for 18 path-loss measurements at each of 12 locations. The

"combined" column is the root-sum-of-squares combination of the linear values corresponding to the "spacing" and "frequency" standard deviations.

725-800 MHz - all values in dB

RX

Location TXlo TX2o TX3o

a

-

4—

00

_c

'(Jroa.

1/1

aCD _c1q

Eo

u

a-

(20 c

roQ.

T3

QJC

laEo

u

cr

a;

QjO c

\j

Q.

i/>

a>c

x>Eo

u

1 5.85 1.41 6.11 5.61 0.89 5.84 5.79 0.81 6.00

2 3.41 0.78 3.98 3.35 1.18 4.03 4.22 1.77 4.83

3 5.61 1.21 5.88 5.27 1.09 5.57 4.26 1.45 4.79

4 5.17 1.40 5.52 4.88 1.16 5.24 5.04 1.44 5.42

5 5.73 1.03 5.97 4.97 1.13 5.31 4.77 1.31 5.17

6 5.72 0.89 5.94 6.27 0.79 6.44 6.13 1.10 6.33

7 5.72 0.91 5.94 5.69 1.02 5.93 5.32 1.05 5.60

8 5.65 0.81 5.87 5.79 0.74 6.00 5.52 0.92 5.77

9 5.37 0.70 5.61 6.18 1.71 6.44 6.04 1.02 6.25

10 6.01 0.95 6.21 5.48 1.10 5.75 5.97 0.87 6.00

11 5.73 1.17 5.98 2.41 1.27 3.42 5.78 1.40 4.83

12 5.21 1.03 5.51 5.84 1.11 6.07 5.98 0.88 4.79

5.2 Repeatability of measurement instrumentation

To quantify the repeatability of the VNA measurements, which is also a Type A

uncertainty, we conducted multiple measurements at the NIST Open Area Test Site

(OATS). This is a 30 m x 60 m ground plane located many electrical wavelengths from

the nearest reflective objects or scatterers. We performed a set of reference

measurements, that is, direct line-of-sight measurements between the transmit and

receive antennas. We used the same antennas and measurement set-up used in the

Denver urban canyon environment, with the exception of a longer coaxial cable

between the antenna and the VNA. Measurements were collected at 2 m increments for

antenna separations between 4 m and 10 m in the 750 MHz band. The antennas were

located 5 m above the ground, resulting in little contribution from ground reflections. The

separation between antennas was measured with a tape measure, which likely

increased the standard deviation reported below. Two sets of measurements were

performed covering the 700 MHz band. One set of data covered frequencies from

2S
725 MHz to 800 MHz. The second set of measurements was conducted between

300 MHz and 1 GHz. From this wideband measurement, data around the 750 MHz

band were extracted.

We calculated the standard deviation in the path loss for this series of reference

measurements by subtracting off the expected free-space path loss for each antenna

separation value relative to the 2 m case, and then finding the standard deviation in the

remaining path loss values. We then computed the standard deviation of the eight

measurements (four antenna separations times two measurements). The standard

deviation for the eight measurements was approximately 0.3 dB. Thus, the estimated

Type A uncertainty ivrepeat for the VNA measurement system is given as 0.3 dB for the

750 MHz band.

5.3 Off-frequency estimates of path loss

As discussed above, the path loss and RMS delay spread data presented in Appendices A and B were calculated from measured data collected over the frequency

band 725 MHz to 800 MHz (unless otherwise noted), rather than at the operating

frequencies of the RF-based PASS devices. We used these "750 MHz band" data for

various reasons: First, the 450 MHz and 900 MHz bands are heavily utilized by other

wireless equipment, making it difficult to collect propagation-channel data that are unaffected by external radio interference, as shown in Figure 5.1(a). Also, NIST has

collected a significant amount of propagation-channel data in the 750 MHz frequency

band as part of a study of emergency responder use of this newly allocated frequency

band [15, 16]. We decided to utilize the data collected for that project in our study of RFbased PASS performance, simplifying the data collection and analysis procedure

significantly. Use of these off-frequency path loss data will introduce a systematic error when we relate the RF-based PASS device performance (success, failure, or delay) to a

path loss value measured at the same location. We quantify this additional source of

uncertainty by comparing measured path loss for various environments at the

frequencies of interest (450 MHz, 750 MHz, and 900 MHz).

We first consider theoretical free-space path loss at the three frequencies. The

ideal free-space path loss value is plotted in Figure 5.2, where path loss is given by

PZ = -101og10?

A- (5.1)

(4ml)

As shown in Figure 5.2, when compared to a path loss measurement at 750 MHz, we

would expect approximately 4 dB less path loss at 460 MHz and 2 dB more path loss at

900 MHz.

We next consider path loss determined from NIST measurements made in two

different, non-free-space environments. Figures 5.3(a) and 5.3(b) provide an estimate of

the attenuation versus frequency behavior for two representative scenarios: (a) a 60-

story high-rise office building in Denver, CO [15], and (b) the outdoor urban canyon

setting of Denver, CO discussed above and in [16]. In both cases, empirical cumulative

distribution functions (CDF) are estimated from the received signal power that was

measured at multiple fixed sites.

26
55

60 mB65

CD 0.

75

30

460 MHz

750 MHz

900 MHz

\. '-..

""** ^ ^^

50 100 150

Separation distance (m) 200

Figure 5.2: Simulated free-space path loss, from equation (5.1), as a function of transmit and

receive antenna separation at three frequencies. At a separation of 200 m, the path loss values

are 71 .2 dB at 460 MHz, 76.0 dB at 750 MHz, and 77.5 dB at 900 MHz.

Collection and processing for these data were performed as follows: continuouswave (CW) sources (handheld radios transmitting an unmodulated carrier) were carried

through the building or urban streets, and a spectrum analyzer connected to an antenna

measured the received power for a single frequency. Use of narrowband filters and a check of background environmental signals ensured that the signals we acquired

corresponded to the ones we transmitted, rather than those from interfering sources.

Different handheld radio transmitters were used for each of the various

frequencies. Measurements from all radios were corrected for nominal differences in transmit power levels (1 W or 5 W, depending on the frequency). This correction

provides us with an order-of-magnitude estimate of the difference in path loss from one

frequency to another for these environments. More detail on these measurements can

be found in [15] and [16].

The corrected data acquired at all of the various receive sites were combined for

each frequency, and a Kaplan-Meier estimate of the CDF was calculated for the data

set. This estimated CDF was then used to obtain the parameters for a fit to a log-normal

CDF. The log-normal distribution was used for the fit because it represents the typical

power distribution in cluttered environments. The CDFs for the various frequencies are shown in Figures 5.3(a) and 5.3(b), with the received power levels for threshold values

of 0.5 listed in the figures. For the frequencies of interest here, the 430 MHz, 750 MHz,

900 MHz, and 2.4 GHz bands, the root-mean-square error (RMSE) between the

collected data and the estimated CDF curves is less than 6%.

Power levels at the 0.5 CDF threshold values show the frequency dependence of

attenuation in these two representative environments. For example, for the 60-story

office building (Figure 5.3(a)), the 2.4 GHz signal was received with a signal strength

greater than -99.7 dBm only 50 % of the time, whereas the 750 MHz signal was greater

than -86.9 dBm at least 50 % of the time. Thus, for this case, the 750 MHz signal was

attenuated approximately 12.8 dB less than the 2.4 GHz signal.

27
o -J ^ ?•--—

55 : ^y~

1 90511Hz

* IS343bIK

- :-: : ; ;-i ii<:>.3i

fo* sac MCCF* 1:

.«5 - -?: ua

•*:: "x.\3: 73 1 M5ica

.:"

j :-ic:M-i:

-91

" 48SC NIK;

(a) (b)

Figure 5.3: Cumulative distribution functions for various single-frequency measurements made

at a large number of locations throughout two different radio-propagation environments: (a) a 60-

story high-rise office building and (b) the Denver urban canyon. The received power at a

threshold of 0.5 is shown in the legend, providing an estimate of the expected differences in path

loss for different RF-based PASS carrier frequencies.

Table 5.2 shows the 0.5 CDF threshold values for frequencies of interest for the

RF-based PASS systems we tested, along with data from 2.4 GHz, which is the

frequency of operation for many wireless devices. The 750 MHz path loss value is used

as a reference, and the various rows show the difference between the reference path

loss and path loss values at the frequencies of interest. For example, when the transmit

and receive antennas are placed at the same locations in the high-rise office building,

the 450 MHz signal would be expected to experience 10.9 dB less path loss on average

than the 750 MHz signal, while the 900 MHz signal would experience 1.1 dB more path

loss on average. Note that a wireless system operating in the 2.4 GHz frequency band

would need to overcome approximately 25.4 dB more path loss than one operating at

450 MHz in the high-rise office building environment, and approximately 11.3 dB in the

urban canyon.

Table 5.2: Comparison of CDF values averaged over a 90 % interval (that is, for probabilities

from 0.05 to 0.95) The "Difference" column provides an estimate of the expected difference in path loss for a given frequency band as compared to the reference frequency band of 750 MHz.

Frequency

Band

Free

Space

High-Rise Office

Building

Urban Canyon

NIST Laboratory

Building

Difference

(dB)

Average

Power

(dBm)

Difference

(dB)

Average

Power

(dBm)

Difference

(dB)

Average

Power

(dBm)

Difference

(dB)

750 MHz

(reference)

-70.0 -59.2

-74.8

450 MHz +4.8 -59.1 +10.9 -54.8 +4.4 -75.8 -1.0 900 MHz -1.5 -71.1 -1.1 -61.0 -1.8 -76.6 -1.8 2.4 GHz -10.1 -84.5 -14.5 -66.1 -6.9 -88.3 -13.5

28
Note that the high-rise office building represents a worse-than-average case

because, as the transmitters were carried to higher floors in the building, the frequencydependent receive antenna gain pattern had more of an impact on the received signal

level. We were, in this case, measuring a combination of the path loss and the antenna

pattern, which was not our goal.

Taking the median value of the four path loss differences corresponding to free

space, the high-rise office building, the urban canyon, and the laboratory building, we

expect to overestimate the path loss in the 450 MHz band by around 4.6 dB, and we

expect to underestimate the path loss values in the 900 MHz band by around 1.6 dB.

(We use the median rather than the mean to avoid dominating the estimate by the

extreme values, and because we have only four samples.) For convenience, we prefer

to use one value to approximate the error in our estimate of RF-based PASS

performance at either frequency. Thus, we use the larger of the two values, giving

±4.6 dB for i/path- This represents the uncertainty introduced into an estimate of RFbased PASS performance at 450 MHz or 900 MHz by the use of a 750 MHz band pathloss measurement. This is a systematic Type B contribution to the uncertainty.

5.4 Controlled-environment reference measurement

As described in Section 2.1, to calibrate out the frequency-dependent loss (or

gain) of the antenna and connecting cables from out path-loss measurements, we

conducted a line-of-sight reference measurement. Such a reference measurement is made by placing the receive antenna a known distance from the transmit antenna with

the entire measurement system assembled (including the optical fiber, the amplifier, and

all cables to be used in the field tests) and conducting a VNA measurement.

Subsequent measurements made at the field test location are corrected with the

reference measurement by use of equation (2.1).

Reference measurements made at a field test location can include the effects of

environmental reflections and interferers. As a result, we wish to conduct a reference

measurement in a controlled environment. To assess the impact of the environment on

our reference measurements, we compared reference measurements made in the

heavily cluttered and dynamically changing Denver urban canyon environment, shown

in Figure 5.4(a) and described in the following sections, to those made at the NIST

open-area test site (OATS), shown in Figure 5.4(b).

29
Figure 5.4: Reference measurements made in two environments, (a) Denver urban canyon,

with high-frequency-band antennas placed approximately 4 m apart and 1.5 m high, (b) NIST

open-area test site, with low-frequency-band antennas placed 3 m apart and 5 m high.

Figure 5.5 shows two reference measurements covering the frequency range

from 100 MHz to 1.2 GHz. The solid line shows the 4 m reference made in the Denver

urban canyon and the dotted line shows a 4 m reference made in the controlled

environment of the NIST open-area test site. The controlled reference measurement is smoother and does not show the dips around 400 MHz, 600 MHz, and 1 GHz that the

reference made in downtown Denver shows.

CDo

-100

-150 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 Frequency (MHz)

Figure 5.5: Graphs showing two different 4 m reference files of the type that would be used to determine \H{f)\

2 over the frequency range 1 00 MHz to 1 .2 GHz. The measurements were made

in (a) Denver, CO urban canyon, and (b) NIST open-area test site.

Note that the transfer function |H(0|2 would not be significantly affected by the

reference except for cases where the received signal was at a level comparable to that

of as the reference; that is, for cases with low signal-to-noise ratio. We used reference

measurements made in the controlled environment of the OATS wherever possible. To

utilize the controlled-environment reference measurement for all measurements

30
reported in the following sections was not possible. As a result, in Appendix A, the type

of reference measurement is noted for each environment.

Table 5.3 illustrates the difference in estimated path loss when two different

reference files were used. These data correspond to measurements at five locations on

the second floor of the Horizon West apartment building, Boulder, CO. This comparison

was done in the 725 MHz to 800 MHz frequency band. The differences in the estimated

path loss values are less than 0.1 dB. Thus, we neglect this source of uncertainty i/ref in our estimate of path loss.

Table 5.3: Comparison of path-loss estimates from measurements made at five different

receiver locations in a 13-story apartment building when different reference files are used.

Receiver

Location

Field Reference

(dB)

Controlled-Environment

Reference

(dB)

1 86.13 86.13

2 82.78 82.79

3 77.66 77.67

4

78.34 78.35

5

91.12 91.12

5.5 Systematic measurement-system uncertainties

We next consider the Type B uncertainties of the VNA measurement system.

The Type B uncertainties include the impact of temperature changes on measurements

of S2 i. The analysis in [21] estimated a VNA drift over three days in a laboratory setting

as 0.1 dB, or (vdrift = 0.1 dB. S21 data collected on the fiber optic link over several days in a laboratory setting provides an estimated Type B uncertainty associated with the fiber

link at 0.1 dB, that is, iVfj ber = 0.1 dB [16].

5.6 Combined uncertainty in relating path-loss to RF-based PASS

performance

Table 5.4 summarizes the various components of uncertainty described in the

previous subsections. The combined uncertainty for our estimates of path loss used to assess wireless devices operating at 450 MHz and 900 MHz is

2 : "combined —

\j "fading + "repeat + " IMHz + "ret' + "drift + "liber (5.2;

These uncertainties were combined by use of a root-sum-of-squares on the

linear (as opposed to logarithmic) values, and then converted back to decibels, giving

31
iVcombined of 7.0 dB. This uncertainty is high, but the goal of this work is to provide broad

classifications of environments whose measured path-loss values range from a few tens

of decibels to well over 100 decibels. Thus, an uncertainty of 7.0 dB is acceptable for our application. The errors in our estimate of RMS delay spread are likely significant as

well. However, because the data indicate that path loss, not multipath, is the most

significant impediment to RF-based PASS performance, we did not consider these

errors in the present work.

Table 5.4: Uncertainties in estimated path loss values that are used to assess RF-based PASS

performance at 450 MHz and 900 MHz.

Uncertainty

Name and Type

Uncertainty Description Method of Estimate Value (dB)

"fading

Type A

Small-scale fading

("channel variability")

derived from multiple path

loss estimates.

Mean of the standard

deviation from 36

independent path loss

estimates. Each standard

deviation found from 75

frequencies, nine antenna

positions, and two repeats.

5.7

"repeat Type A

Measurement system

repeatability.

Standard deviation from

eight independent reference

measurements at NIST

OATS. Derived from

complete system

measurements, including

VNA, fiber optic link, and

antennas.

0.3

^750MHz

Type B

Use of 750 MHz path loss

measurements to estimate path loss at 450 MHz and 900 MHz.

Median difference between

the average power over the

90 % probability intervals at 750 MHz and other

frequencies in three

representative environments

and free space.

4.6

Uref Type B

Use of reference

measurement made in controlled environment on

field test data.

Difference in path loss

estimate for representative

environment calculated with

both types of reference data.

neglected

Type B

Drift in VNA

measurements over time

Observed VNA drift over

three days.

0.1

briber Type B

Impact of temperature on

fiber optic cable

Observation in controlled

experiment over three days.

0.1

6. Summary and Conclusion

We compared measurements of the path loss and RMS delay spread of radiopropagation channels to the performance of RF-based PASS systems in a number of

environments. The tests were conducted in building structures representative of those in

32
which firefighters and other emergency responders are expected to have difficulty with

radio communication. RF-based PASS performance was tested at approximately the

same locations that the propagation-channel characterization was carried out. The base

station and portable RF-based PASS unit were deployed to mimic the building

penetration scenario of the firefighter-to-incident command transmission. We analyzed

the measured data to determine the primary impairments to successful transmission of

alarms, and to extract representative values of these impairments for use in laboratorybased test methods.

The majority of data that we analyzed indicate that signal attenuation, rather than

multipath, is the dominant impairment to RF-based PASS transmission when no

external RF interference is present. Our analysis of the data also allowed us to develop

a rough classification of various building types in terms of attenuation. Laboratory-based

test methods utilizing the values of attenuation identified in this study are currently being

developed to verify device performance of RF-based PASS in various environments.

These test methods are intended to be used in consensus standards to ensure that RFbased PASS systems operate reliably in the presence of a certain amount of path loss.

Note that, with current technology, RF interference can present an

insurmountable obstacle to successful transmission of alarm signals, no matter what the

attenuation classification of the structure. Laboratory-based tests are also being

developed that assess device performance in a controlled environment under RF

interference conditions.

Additional field tests and analysis should be conducted to determine the level of

multipath in highly reflective environments such as factories, utility installations, and

other manufacturing environments. Laboratory-based tests should be developed if these

environments are found to impact RF-based PASS performance.

The authors hope that the data presented here, along with future sets of data,

can be used to develop a complete suite of test methods, not only for RF-based PASS

systems, but also for other RF-based electronic safety equipment. The impairments to RF-based wireless devices described here are general and could be used to develop

standards for other equipment as the need for standards arises for these systems.

Acknowledgements

The analysis and development of test methods for RF-based emergency equipment has

been funded under interagency agreement HSHQDC-1 1-X-00497 by the Department of

Homeland Security, Science and Technology Directorate, Standards Branch, Philip

Mattson, Chief and Bert Coursey (former Chief). The RF propagation-channel studies

were funded by the Public Safety Communications Research (PSCR) program, a joint

program of the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) Office of Law

Enforcement Standards (OLES) and the National Telecommunications and Information

Administration (NTIA) Institute for Telecommunication Sciences (ITS). Dereck Orr,

Program Manager. Jeff Bratcher, Technical Manager. Jason Coder, Galen Koepke,

Chris Holloway, John Ladbury, Dennis Camell, and Camillo Gentile of NIST and Chriss

Grosvenor of NTIA participated in the measurements. David Matolak, Qian Zhang, and

Qiong Wu of Ohio University participated in the measurements in the Denver urban

canyon and on the NIST campus.

33
References

[1] D.R. Novotny, J.R. Guerrieri, and D.G. Kuester, "Potential interference issues

between FCC Part 15 compliant UHF ISM emitters and equipment passing standard

immunity testing requirements," IEEE EMC Symp. Dig., Aug. 2009, pp. 161-165.

[2] M.R. Souryal, D.R. Novotny, J.R. Guerrieri, D.G. Kuester, and K.A. Remley, "Impact

of RF interference between a passive RFID system and a frequency hopping

communications system in the 900 MHz ISM band," IEEE EMC Symp. Dig., July 2010,

pp. 495-500.

[3] K.A. Remley, M.R. Souryal, W.F. Young, D.G. Kuester, D.R. Novotny, and J.R.

Guerrieri, "Interference tests for 900 MHz frequency-hopping public-safety wireless

devices," IEEE EMC Symp. Dig., Aug. 201 1 , pp. 497-502.

[4] National Institute of Standards and Technology, "Statement of Requirements for

Urban Search and Rescue Robot Performance Standards-Preliminary

Report"http://www.isd.mel.nist.gov/US&R_Robot_Standards/Requirements%20Report%

20(prelim).pdf

[5] K.A. Remley, G. Koepke, E. Messina, A. Jacoff, and G. Hough, "Standards

development for wireless Communications for Urban Search and Rescue robots," Proc.

Intl. Symp. Advanced Radio Technologies, June 2007, pp. 66-70.

[6] National Fire Protection Association, NFPA 1982: Standard on Personal Alert Safety

Systems (PASS), document scope available at http://www.nfpa.orq/aboutthecodes/AboutTheCodes.asp?DocNum=1982 , accessed

Nov. 4, 2011.

[7] A. A. M. Saleh, R. A. Valenzuela, "A Statistical Model for Indoor Multipath

Propagation," IEEE Journ. Selected Areas Comm., vol. SAC-5, no. 2, pp. 128-137,

February 1987.

[8] P. Papazian, "Basic Transmission Loss and Delay Spread Measurements for

Frequencies Between 430 and 5750 MHz," IEEE Trans. Ant. Prop., vol. 53, no. 2, pp.

694-701, February 2005.

[9] J. R. Hampton, N. M. Merheb, W. L. Lain, D. E. Paunil, R. M. Shuford, W. T. Kasch,

"Urban Propagation Measurements for Ground Based Communication in the Military

UHF Band," IEEE Trans. Ant. Prop., vol. 54, no. 2, pp. 644-654, February 2006.

[10] R. J. C. Bultitude, T. C. W. Schenk, N. A. A. Op den Kamp, N. Adnani, "A

Propagation-Measurement-Based Evaluation of Channel Characteristics and Models

Pertinent to the Expansion of Mobile Radio Systems to Frequencies Beyond 2 GHz,"

IEEE Trans. Veh. Tech., vol. 56, no. 2, pp. 382-388, March 2007.

34
[11] D. W. Matolak, "Channel Modeling for Vehicle-to-Vehicle Communications," IEEE

Communications Magazine, vol. 46, no. 5, pp. 76-83, May 2008.

[12] C. Gentile, N. Golmie, K.A. Remley, C.L. Holloway, and W.F. Young, "A channel

propagation model for the 700 MHz band," Proc. 2010 IEEE Int. Conf. on Comm. (ICC),

2010, pp. 1 -6.

[13] W.F. Young, C.L. Holloway, G. Koepke, D. Camell, Y. Becquet, and K.A. Remley,

"Radio-wave propagation Into large building structures—part 1: CW signal attenuation

and variability, IEEE Trans. Antennas Propagat., vol. 58, no. 4, Apr. 2010, pp. 1279-

1289.

[14] K. A. Remley, G. Koepke, C. L. Holloway, C. Grosvenor, D. Camell, J. Ladbury, R.

T. Johnk, and W. F. Young, "Radio Wave Propagation Into Large Building Structures;

Part 2, Characterization of Multipath," IEEE Trans. Antennas Propagat, vol. 58, no. 4,

Apr. 2010, pp. 1290-1301.

[15] W. F. Young, K. A. Remley, J. Ladbury, C. L. Holloway, C. Grosvenor, G. Koepke,

D. Camell, S. Floris, W. Numan, and A. Garuti, "Measurements to support public safety

communications: attenuation and variability of 750 MHz radio wave signals in four large

building structures," NIST Technical Note 1552, Aug. 2009.

[16] W. F. Young, K. A. Remley, D. W. Matolak, Q. Zhang, C. L. Holloway, C.

Grosvenor, C. Gentile, G. Koepke, and Q. Wu, "Measurements and models for the

wireless channel in a ground-based urban setting in two public safety frequency bands,"

NIST Technical Note 1557, Jan. 201 1

.

[17] J.C.-I. Chuang, "The effects of time delay spread on portable radio communications

channels with digital modulation," IEEE J. Selected Areas in Comm., vol. SAC-5(5), pp.

879-889, June 1987.

[18] Y. Oda, R. Tsuchihashi, K. Tsuenekawa, M. Hata, "Measured path loss and

multipath propagation characteristics in UHF and microwave frequency bands for urban

mobile communications," Proc. 53rd IEEE Vehic. Technol. Conf., vol. 1, pp. 337-341,

May 2001.

[19] J.A. Wepman, J.R. Hoffman, L.H. Loew, "Impulse Response Measurements in the

1850-1990 MHz Band in Large Outdoor Cells", NTIA Report 94-309, June 1994.

[20] B. N. Taylor, C. E. Kuyatt, "Guidelines for Evaluating and Expressing the

Uncertainty of NIST Measurement Results," NIST Technical Note 1297, September,

1994.

35
[21] J. B. Coder, J. M. Ladbury, C. L. Holloway, and K. A. Remley, "Examining the

True Effectiveness of Loading a Reverberation Chamber: How to Get Your Chamber

Consistently Loaded." IEEE Int. Symp. Electromagnetic Compat., July 25-30, 2010.

Appendix A: Measured Data

A.1 Denver Urban Canyon

Location Test VNA Path Loss RMS Delay 908 MHz 908 MHz 450 MHz

and Notes Point Loss @750 MHz Spread PASS PASS PASS

Data (mean of 9) @750 MHz Unit 1 Unit 2

(dB) (dB) (mean of 9)

(ns)

Denver

Urban

Canyon

TX1

TX2

1 17.25 59.2 51.7 O

2 5.15 44.1 20.6 O

5 21.01 63.0 107.3

7 34.24 76.2 146.1

9 36.54 78.5 134.7 X

10 43.48 85.5 211.0

1 36.84 78.8 114.3

2 17.06 59.0 32.5 D

5 27.65 69.6 81.6 O X

7 40.13 82.1 108.5

9 42.34 84.3 94.8 X

10 49.71 91.7 N/A

O = Alarm received

D = Alarm received with Delay

X = Alarm not received

Measurement details

Calibration Attenuator: 40 dB for the high bands, 20 dB for the low bands

Note: Denver Urban Canyon data: attenuator in place during measurements. No path

loss correction for atten needed.

Reference measurement distance: 4 m (ref. from OATS => 20 dB atten)

Formula: VNA data + free-space loss = Path Loss

36
A.2 Horizon West Apartment Building

Location

and Notes

Test

Point

VNA

Loss

Data

(dB)

Path Loss

@750 MHz

(dB)

RMS Delay

Spread

@750 MHz

(ns)

908 MHz

PASS

908 MHz

PASS w/

repeater

450 MHz

PASS

Horizon 1 24.75 76.7 25.0 D X X

West

Floor 2

2 21.41 73.4 25.0 D X X

3 16.29 68.3 16.1 D D X

Notes:

4 16.97 69.0 32.1 D X X

- System 1 5 29.74 81.7 18.3 D X X

repeater at 6 35.44 87.4 54.3 X X X

test point 2. 7 26.29 78.3 37.5 D X X

8 26.34 78.3 48.5 X X X

9 24.05 76.0 19.7 D X X

10 24.25 76.2 46.8 X X X

11 22.38 74.4 31.2 X X X

12 20.68 72.7 20.1 D X X

13 25.77 77.8 34.8 X X X

Horizon 1 28.22 80.2 33.9 D X

West

Floor 7

2 18.68 70.7 24.4 D X

3 17.16 69.1 29.8 D X

4 35.12 87.1 51.4 D X

5 37.71 89.7 52.4 D X

6 33.78 85.8 77.1 D X X

7 34.08 86.1 46.2 D X

8 30.62 82.6 41.5 O X X

9 28.92 80.9 51.3 D X

10 31.09 83.1 56.5 D X X

11 33.51 85.5 47.4 D X X

12 36.38 88.4 69.7 D X

13 28.50 80.5 28.2 D X

O = Alarm received

D = Alarm received with Delay

X = Alarm not received

Measurement Details

Calibration Attenuator: 30 dB for the high bands, 30 dB for the low bands

Reference measurement distance: 4 m (OATS => 20 dB atten)

Note: 2 m ref file (collected at Horizon West) gives same PL within 0.01 dB.

Formula: VNA data + atten - ref meas atten + free-space loss = Path Loss

37
A.3 Republic Plaza Office Building

Location

and Notes

Test

Point

VNA

Loss

Data

(dB)

Path Loss

@750 MHz

(dB)

RMS Delay

Spread

@750 MHz

(ns)

908 MHz

PASS

908 MHz

PASS w/

repeater

450 MHz

PASS

Republic 1 7.23 69.2 45.0 O O O

Plaza

Notes:

- System 1 repeater at

2 27.06 89.0 39.5 D O O

3 38.15 100.1 52.3 X X O

4 37.60 99.6 133.4 X X O

test point 2. 5 37.18 99.2 81.3 X O

6 42.26 104.2 102.8 X O

7 46.04 108.0 138.3 X X o

8 44.88 106.9 104.7 X

9 48.30 110.3 376.1 X X

10 45.34 107.3 338.2 X

11 50.25 112.2 167.9 X

12 50.48 112.5 231.6 X

13 50.98 113.0 209.1 X

14 51.82 113.8 192.3 X

15 49.60 111.6 240.2 X

16 44.64 106.6 377.5 X X

17 29.28 91.3 296.9

18 30.45 92.4 161.8

19 42.24 104.2 429.9

20 39.30 101.3 333.3

21 47.07 109.1 453.5

O = Alarm received

D = Alarm received with Delay

X = Alarm not received

Measurement Details

Calibration attenuator (atten): 30 dB for the high bands, 10 dB for the low bands

Reference measurement distance (free-space loss): 4 m (OATS => 20 dB atten used)

Formula: VNA data + atten + free-space loss = Path Loss

38
A.4 NIST Building 27

Location and Test VNA Path Loss RMS Delay 908 MHz 908 MHz 450 MHz

Notes Point Loss @750 MHz Spread PASS PASS w/ PASS

Data (dB) @750 MHz repeater

(dB) (ns)

Building 27

Notes:

- No PASS

tests conducted.

1LOS 47.26 109.2

2LOS 30.18 92.2

3LOS 22.89 84.9

1NLOS 48.43 110.4

2NLOS 35.61 97.6

3NLOS 21.17 90.2

228.2

18.4

13.4

15.9

11.7

Measurement details

Calibration Attenuator: 40 dB for the high bands, 20 dB for the low bands

Reference measurement distance: 4 m (ref. from OATS => 20 dB atten)

Formula: VNA data + atten + free-space loss = Path Loss

39
A.5 NIST Building 24

Outside-to-lnside

Location

and Notes

Test

Point

VNA

Loss

Data

(dB)

Path Loss

@750 MHz

(mean of 9)

(dB)

RMS Delay

Spread

@750 MHz

(mean of 9)

(ns)

908 MHz

PASS

908 MHz

PASS w/

repeater

450 MHz

PASS

NIST BIdg

24

Notes:

- Path Loss

and RMS

Delay

calculated

with TX

outdoors.

- System 1 repeater at test point 2.

1 37.65 99.63 39.5 O O

2 46.55 108.5 N/A O O

3 53.16 115.1 N/A O O

4 — — N/A X O O

5 — — N/A X D X

6 ~ — N/A X D X

7 ~ — N/A X O X

8 52.81 114.8 N/A D D X

9 51.90 113.9 N/A X D X

10 ~ ~ N/A X O X

O = Alarm received

D = Alarm received with Delay

X = Alarm not received

Measurement details

Calibration attenuator: 40 dB for the high bands, 20 dB for the low bands

Ref measurement distance: 4 m (OATS => 20 dB atten)

Formula: VNA data + atten + free-space loss = Path Loss

40
A.6 NIST Building 1 Corridor

Outside-to-lnside

Location

and Notes

Test

Point

VNA

Loss

Data

(dB)

Path Loss

@750 MHz

(dB)

RMS Delay

Spread

@750 MHz

(ns)

908 MHz

PASS

908 MHz

PASS w/

repeater

450 MHz

PASS

NIST BIdg

1 Corridor:

InsideOutside

Notes:

Base

outside at "Wing 6"

- 908 MHz

repeater at

test point 8.

1 49.7 105.7 55.9 O O O

2 56.2 112.2 53.8

3 60.3 116.3 34.1

4 70.1 126.0 95.1

5 72.3 128.3 88.1

6 75.1 131.1 84.0 D

7 73.9 129.9 79.1 D

8 77.8 133.7 72.4 D X

9 74.1 120.1 36.9 X D X

10 84.2 140.2 N/A X O X

11 86.4 142.4 N/A X O X

12 85.2 141.1 N/A X D X

13 87.9 143.9 N/A X D X

14 86.5 142.4 N/A X O X

15 X O X

16 O X

17 X O X

18 X O X

O = Alarm received

D = Alarm received with Delay

X = Alarm not received

Measurement Details

Calibration attenuator: 40 dB for the high bands, 20 dB for the low bands

Reference measurement distance: 2 m

Formula: VNA data + atten + free-space loss = Path Loss

41
A.6 (continued) NIST Building 1 Corridor

Inside-to-lnside

Location Test VNA Path Loss RMS Delay 908 MHz 908 MHz 450 MHz

and Notes Point Loss @750 MHz Spread PASS PASS w/ PASS

Data (dB) @750 MHz repeater

(dB) (ns)

NIST Bldg

1 Corridor:

InsideInside

Notes:

-TX located on "Wing 4"

loading

dock

- 908 MHz

repeater at

test point 4.

- Path loss

tests not

possible at points 9-15.

1 10.36 66.3 11.8 O O

2 28.46 84.4 25.5 O O

3 39.16 95.1 27.1 O O

4 45.01 101.0 28.4 O O

5 50.19 106.2 28.5 O O

6 60.40 116.4 36.0 O O

7 65.22 121.2 57.6 O

8 67.91 123.9 30.9 O

9 — ~ ~ O

10 — — ~ O

11 — — — X

12 — — — X

13 ~ — — X

14 - ~ — X

15 — ~ — X

16 81.39 137.4 62.54 D

17 91.54 147.5 43.10 X

18 94.83 150.8 N/A X

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

O = Alarm received

D = Alarm received with Delay

X = Alarm not received

Measurement Details

Calibration attenuator: 40 dB for the high bands, 20 dB for the low bands

Reference measurement distance: 2 m

Formula: VNA data + atten + free-space loss = Path Loss

42
A.7 Colorado Convention Center

Location and Test VNA Path Loss RMS Delay 908 MHz 908 MHz 450 MHz

Notes Point Loss @1 GHz Spread @ PASS PASS w/ PASS

Data (dB) 1 GHz repeater

(dB) (ns)

2 26.92 98.9 68.2 — ~ O

3 37.47 109.5 79.6 — ~ O

4 55.00 127.0 159.3 — ~

5 73.05 145.0 180.6 — — D

Colorado 1 24.65 96.6 85.6 O

Convention

Center

Notes:

- 450 MHz

system

tested only. 6 82.61 154.6 128.8 -- -- X

O = Alarm received

D = Alarm received with Delay

X = Alarm not received

Measurement details

Note: Data shown are for 1 to 1.2 GHz band, horn antenna to omnidirectional antenna.

Path loss shown is higher than expected for PASS performance due to antenna gain.

Calibration attenuator: 30 dB for the high band

Reference measurement distance: 3 m

Formula: VNA data + atten + free-space loss = Path Loss

43
Appendix B: RMS Delay Spread vs. Attenuation

B.1 Denver Urban Canyon

Transmit Site 1

250

PASS 900 MHz system, Unit 1, no repeater

60 70

Path Loss (dB)

250

PASS 900 MHz system, Unit 2, no repeater

60 70 80

Path Loss (dB)

90

250

PASS 450MHz system

60 70

Path Loss (dB)

44
B.1 (continued) Denver Urban Canyon

Transmit Site 2

PASS 900 MHz system, Unit 1, no repeater

70 80

Path Loss (dB)

PASS 900 MHz system, Unit 2, no repeater

70 80

Path Loss (dB)

PASS 450MHz system

70 80

Path Loss (dB) 100

45
B.2 Horizon West Apartment Building

Floor 2

PASS 900 MHz system, no repeater

70 75 80

Path Loss (dB)

90

55

50

S*5r

1 40

Q.

If) 35- & 30

(f) i

25

20

15

65

PASS 900 MHz system, with repeater

X

X

X

X X

X

X XX

* X

X

70 75 80

Path Loss (dB)

85 90

PASS 450 MHz system

70 75 80 85

Path Loss (dB)

90

46
B.2 (continued) Horizon West Apartment Building

Floor 7

PASS 900 MHz system, no repeater

70 75 80 85

Path Loss (dB)

90

PASS 900 MHz system, with repeater

70 75 80 85

Path Loss (dB)

90

PASS 450 MHz system

75 80

Path Loss (dB)

47
B.3 Republic Plaza Office Building

PASS 900 MHz system, no repeater

70 80 90 100 110 120

Path Loss (dB)

400

PASS 900 MHz system, with repeater

70 80 90 100 110 120

Path Loss (dB)

PASS 450 MHz system

400 '

' '

1 1 O 350 - o ?3on . o

.

X3

3j 250 - - Q. %

^200 oo

TO 8 150

o

o

o

o

COi 100 o o s o 50

n

o o

o "

60 70 80 90 100 110 120

Path Loss (dB)

48
B.4 NIST Building 27

Small main building connected by long subterranean tunnel to small back room.

No PASS tests conducted, channel characterization only

Path Loss and RMS Delay Spread, LOS and NLOS

250

«200

coCD£ 150

Q. CO

>>

CD» 100 Q

CO* 50

°80

o LOS

NLOS

o

o $

O

' « 1 100 110

Path Loss (dB) 120

49
B.5NIST Building 24

Outside-to-lnside

PASS 900 MHz system, no repeater

95 100 105 110 115 120

Path Loss (dB)

PASS 900 MHz system, with repeater

100 105 110 115

Path Loss (dB) 120

PASS 450 MHz system

105 110 115

Path Loss (dB) 120

50
B.6 NIST Building 1 Corridor

Outside-to-lnside

PASS 900 MHz system, no repeater

1 00 110 120 130 140 150

Path Loss (dB)

100 PASS 900 MHz system, with repeater

120 130

Path Loss (dB) 150

PASS 450 MHz system

°60 80 100 120 140 160

Path Loss (dB)

51
B.6 (continued) NIST Building 1 Corridor

Inside-to-lnside

PASS 900 MHz system, no repeater

100 120

Path Loss (dB) 160

PASS 900 MHz system, with repeater

°60 80 100 120 140 160

Path Loss (dB)

°60

PASS 450 MHz system

X O

X

O

o

o ° °°

o

80 100 120 140 160

Path Loss (dB)

52
B.7 Colorado Convention Center

450 MHz PASS only

200

PASS 450 MHz system

100 120 140

Path Loss (dB)

160

:>:>
Appendix C: Path Loss

Free space path loss:

PL = 10*log 10 [(X/47rd)

2](dB),

where

X=c/f,

r=carrier frequency (Hz) c= speed of light, 3e8 m/s

At 750 MHz:

2 m: PL = 35.96 dB

3 m: PL = 39.49 dB

4 m: PL = 41.98 dB

54


NIST Technical Publications

Periodical

Journal of Research of the National Institute of Standards and Technology-Reports NIST research and

development in metrology and related fields of physical science, engineering, applied mathematics, statistics, biotechnology, and information technology. Papers cover a broad range of subjects, with major emphasis on measurement methodology and the basic technology underlying standardization. Also included from time to time are survey articles on topics closely related to the Institute's technical and scientific programs. Issued six times a year.

Nonperiodicals

Monographs-Major contributions to the technical literature on various subjects related to the Institute's scientific and technical activities. Handbooks-Recommended codes of engineering and industrial practice (including safety codes) developed in cooperation with interested industries, professional organizations, and regulatory bodies. Special Publications-Include proceedings of conferences sponsored by NIST, NIST annual reports, and other

special publications appropriate to this grouping such as wall charts, pocket cards, and bibliographies.

National Standard Reference Data Series-Provides quantitative data on the physical and chemical properties of

materials, compiled from the world's literature and critically evaluated. Developed under a worldwide program

coordinated by NIST under the authority of the National Standard Data Act (Public Law 90-396). NOTE: The

Journal of Physical and Chemical Reference Data (JPCRD) is published bimonthly for NIST by the American

Institute of Physics (A1P). Subscription orders and renewals are available from AIP, P.O. Box 503284, St. Louis,

MO 63150-3284.

Building Science Series-Disseminates technical information developed at the Institute on building materials,

components, systems, and whole structures. The series presents research results, test methods, and performance

criteria related to the structural and environmental functions and the durability and safely characteristics of building

elements and systems.

Technical Notes-Studies or reports which are complete in themselves but restrictive in their treatment of a subject.

Analogous to monographs but not so comprehensive in scope or definitive in treatment of the subject area. Often

serve as a vehicle for final reports of work performed at NIST under the sponsorship of other government agencies.

Voluntary Product Standards-Developed under procedures published by the Department of Commerce in Part 1 0. Title 15, of the Code of Federal Regulations. The standards establish nationally recognized requirements for products, and provide all concerned interests with a basis for common understanding of the characteristics of the products. NIST administers this program in support of the efforts of private-sector standardizing organizations.

Order the following NISTpublications-FIPS and NISTIRs-from the National Technical Information Service,

Springfield, VA 22161.

Federal Information Processing Standards Publications (FIPS PUB)-Publications in this series collectively

constitute the Federal Information Processing Standards Register. The Register serves as the official source of

information in the Federal Government regarding standards issued by NIST pursuant to the Federal Property and

Administrative Services Act of 1949 as amended, Public Law 89-306 (79 Stat. 1 127), and as implemented by

Executive Order 11717 (38 FR 12315, dated May 11,1973) and Part 6 of Title 15 CFR (Code of Federal

Regulations).

NIST Interagency or Internal Reports (NISTIR)-The series includes interim or final reports on work performed

by NIST for outside sponsors (both government and nongovernment). In general, initial distribution is handled b\ the sponsor; public distribution is handled by sales through the National Technical Information Sen ice, Springfield,

VA 22161, in hard copy, electronic media, or microfiche form. NISTIR's may also report results of NIST projects of

transitory or limited interest, including those that will be published subsequently in more comprehensive form
U.S. Department of Commerce

National Institute of Standards and Technology

325 Broadway

Boulder, CO 80305-3337

Official Business

Penalty for Private Use $300