NIST Technical Note 1557

Measurements and Models for the 

Wireless Channel in a Ground-Based 

Urban Setting in Two Public Safety

Frequency Bands

William F. Young

Kate A. Remley

David W. Matolak

Qian Zhang

Christopher L. Holloway

Chriss Grosvenor

Camillo Gentile

Galen Koepke

Qiong Wu

NIST Technical Note 1557

Measurements and Models for the Wireless 

Channel in a Ground-Based Urban Setting in 

Two Public Safety Frequency Bands

 Christopher L. Holloway

William F. Young

Kate A. Remley

David W. Matolak

Qian Zhang

Christopher L. Holloway

Chriss Grosvenor

Camillo Gentile

Galen Koepke

Qiong Wu

 

 

Electromagnetics Division

National Institute of Standards and Technology

325 Broadway

Boulder, CO 80305

January 2011

U.S. Department of Commerce

Gary Locke, 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 1557

Natl. Inst. Stand. Technol. Tech. Note 1557, 67 pages (January 2011)

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
iii

Contents

Executive Summary..................................................................................................................... iv

1. Introduction............................................................................................................................... 5

2. Measurement and Channel Characterization Methods....................................................... 7

2.1 Wideband Channel Response Measurements.................................................................. 7

2.2 Path Loss and Delay Spread Calculations........................................................................ 8

2.2.1 Path loss......................................................................................................................... 8

2.2.2 Delay Spread Data Processing...................................................................................... 9

3. Experiment Set-up and Measurement Uncertainties in Denver, Colorado....................... 11

3.1 Experiment Set-up ............................................................................................................ 11

3.2 Measurement Uncertainties............................................................................................. 12

4. Experimental Results.............................................................................................................. 14

4.1 Path Loss Results .............................................................................................................. 14

4.2 Delay Spread Results........................................................................................................ 15

4.2.1 PDP Results for Individual Receive-Transmit Pairings.............................................. 15

4.2.2 Aggregate Power Delay Profile Results...................................................................... 16

4.2.3 Estimated Multipath Component Contribution............................................................ 17

5. Summary of Results and Conclusion .................................................................................... 19

6. References................................................................................................................................ 21

Appendix I: Experiment Setups and Locations ....................................................................... 25

Appendix II: 700 MHz Experimental Data .............................................................................. 43

Appendix III: 4900 MHz Experimental Data........................................................................... 52
iv

Executive Summary

This is another in a series of NIST technical notes (TN) on propagation of radio signals for 

emergency-responder communications. Previous technical notes investigated propagation into 

large building structures (apartment complex, hotel, office buildings, sports stadium, shopping 

mall, etc). Three NIST Tech Notes (NIST TN 1540, NIST TN 1541, and NIST TN 1542)

described experiments related to radio propagation in a structure before, during, and after 

implosion. Two subsequent Tech Notes (NIST TN 1545 and NIST TN 1546) focused

exclusively on RF propagation into large buildings, with no implosion results. Those reports

were intended to give emergency responders and system designers a better understanding of 

what to expect from the radio-propagation environment in disaster situations. The overall goal of 

this project is to create a large, public-domain data set describing the attenuation and variability 

of radio signals in various building types and environments in the public safety frequency bands.

These studies have been funded by the NIST Public Safety Research Laboratory within the 

Office of Law Enforcement Standards.

Because the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has recently opened spectrum between 

764 MHz and 776 MHz for public safety applications, in this report additional measurements 

were carried out in the 750 MHz frequency band in a dense urban environment (sometimes 

called an ―urban canyon‖). We also conducted measurements in this urban environment in the 

4900 MHz public safety band. (4940 MHz to 4990 MHz represents another licensed public 

safety band.) These measurements were all ―ground-to-ground‖ with transmitters and receivers at 

ground level and pedestrian-height antennas to mimic communications between an incident 

command post and a responder on foot. 

This report describes measurements conducted in the urban environment with a vector network 

analyzer (VNA). The VNA yielded samples of the channel frequency response for multiple 

transmitter and receiver locations, and from these frequency responses (or ―channel transfer 

functions‖), channel impulse responses were derived. The channel impulse responses were 

analyzed and delay dispersion statistics were gathered for two types of channels: (1) those with a 

line of sight (LOS) between transmitter and receiver; (2) those that were non-line of sight 

(NLOS). For a given channel type, the average delay spreads in the two bands—the 700 MHz 

and 4900 MHz bands—were found to be less than 120 ns for LOS for distances up to 80 m, and 

between 50 and 240 ns for NLOS conditions for distances between 50 and 140 m.

We also gathered statistics on the distribution of multipath components: their number, their 

delays, and their amplitudes. These distributions can be used as parameters for channel models, 

which can be used to assess the performance of any type of communication system used in these 

frequency bands in these environments.
5

Measurements and Models for the Wireless Channel in a GroundBased Urban Setting in Two Public Safety Frequency Bands

William F. Young, Kate A. Remley, David W. Matolak, Qian Zhang, Christopher L. Holloway, 

Chriss Grosvenor, Camillo Gentile, Galen Koepke, Qiong Wu

Electromagnetics Division

National Institute of Standards and Technology

325 Broadway, Boulder, CO 80305

We report on measured peer-to-peer (ground-based) wireless channel characteristics for an 

urban environment in two public safety frequency bands. Results are based upon measurements 

taken in Denver in June 2009. The public safety bands we investigated are the 700 MHz and 4.9 

GHz bands, both intended for public safety and emergency-response applications. Our study of 

the urban environment in these bands included an estimation of the distributions of both the 

number of multipath components and their delays. Our measurements employed a vector 

network analyzer, from which both path loss and delay dispersion characteristics were obtained 

for link distances up to approximately 100 m. Log-distance models for path loss are presented, 

and dispersive channel models are also described. Our dispersive channel models employ a 

statistical algorithm for the number of multipath components, previously used only in indoor 

settings. By employing a transmit-antenna positioner, we introduced spatial diversity into the 

measurement system, which enabled analysis of the dispersion characteristics of the angle of 

departure, also new for this ground-to-ground channel. The channel models should be useful for 

public safety communication system design and development.

Key words: attenuation; delay spread; emergency responders; multipath; public safety; radio

communications; radio propagation experiments; transfer function; urban canyon; wireless 

communications.

1. Introduction

When emergency responders work in an urban environment, radio communication to individuals 

on the street or around corners is often impaired. Mobile-radio and cell-phone signal strength is 

reduced due to attenuation caused by large buildings, and these buildings also cause signals to 

reflect and travel multiple paths from transmitter to receiver [1-8]. This multipath propagation 

can cause severe signal distortion, which can significantly degrade performance of a 

communication system operating in this environment. In addition, when emergency responders 

set up a communication system on scene, antenna heights will often be low, on the order of 

pedestrian heights, and this can degrade coverage.

Wireless communications for public safety authorities are seeing increased attention [9], [10]. 

Several bands in the 700 MHz spectrum, formerly allocated to television broadcast, have been 
6

re-allocated for public safety applications nationwide, and a band in the 4900 MHz spectrum also

has been recently allocated. In the 700 MHz band, two 12 MHz blocks are available from 764 

MHz to 776 MHz and 794 MHz to 806 MHz, whereas in the 4900 MHz band, 50 MHz is 

available from 4940 MHz to 4990 MHz.

Public safety communications have traditionally been ―narrowband,‖ with voice the primary 

service. Channel allocations of 6.25 kHz, 12 kHz, and 25 kHz have been used for many years. 

The use of new, wider-band services has been gaining popularity for applications such as video, 

geolocation, etc., and this has initiated development of wider-band air interface standards, such 

as the so-called P34 standard, originally developed by the Association of Public Safety 

Communications Officials (APCO), now part of the Telecommunications Industries Association 

(TIA)[11]. With the tremendous growth of wireless local- and metropolitan-area networks which 

use the IEEE 802.11 and 802.16 (WiMAX, [12]) standard technologies, as well as cellular 

technologies such as the 3GPP’s Long Term Evolution (LTE) standard, the public safety 

community is likely to employ one or more of these technologies for reasons of reliability and 

economy. Typical signal bandwidths for these technologies are 1.25 MHz, 5 MHz, 10 MHz, and 

20 MHz. 

For any wireless communication system to operate reliably, knowledge of the channel 

characteristics is vital [13]. Key channel characteristics that influence selection of signaling 

parameters include delay dispersion, frequency coherence, Doppler spread, and temporal 

correlation. Knowledge of these characteristics enables optimal selection of transmission 

parameters (e.g., subcarrier bandwidth, symbol rate), as well as design parameters for remedial 

measures to counteract channel effects (e.g., equalization, diversity) [14]. Public safety

communication systems in the 700 MHz and 4900 MHz bands are yet to be widely deployed. 

Consequently, characterization of wireless channels in these bands for emergency-responder 

environments is presently needed. The Department of Justice Community-Oriented Policing 

Services (COPS) program has funded NIST’s Public Safety Communications Research 

Laboratory (PSRL) for several efforts in this area, including work described in [15]-[18]. The 

focus of NIST’s work is dissemination in the open literature of measured wireless-channel 

characteristics in representative public safety environments using methods that can be 

reproduced by other researchers. Characterization of the urban channel, the subject of this 

technical note, represents a continuation of this work.

The work described here fills a gap in the existing literature by presenting channel measurement 

and modeling results—including spatial channel characteristics and the distribution of the 

number and delays of multipath components—for ground-based, peer-to-peer urban channels in 

the 700 MHz and 4900 MHz public safety frequency bands. These data are not currently 

available for human-height antennas. The measurement techniques we used (described in [11])

provide complex, densely sampled power delay profiles that can be used to quantify multipath 

clustering [19], develop new channel models [20], and verify more realistic, laboratory-based 

measurement methods such as those based on the reverberation chamber [21].

The remainder of this technical note is organized as follows: Section 2 describes the signal 

measurement process. Section 3 describes the urban environment and measurement parameters. 
7

Section 4 presents delay dispersion characteristics for both LOS and non-LOS conditions. We 

also describe a path-loss model based on our data. Section 5 provides conclusions.

2. Measurement and Channel Characterization Methods

2.1. Wideband Channel Response Measurements

We measured the wideband frequency response and, from these, derived the time-delay 

characteristics of the propagation channel. We used a measurement system based on a vector 

network analyzer (VNA), shown in Figure 1. In other data collections [8], [18], and [22], we 

used this instrument to collect data over a very wide frequency range, from 25 MHz to 18 GHz. 

For the measurements reported here, we captured data from two frequency bands 700 MHz to 

800 MHz, and 4.9 GHz to 5.0 GHz. This system, also described in [18], [22] lets us measure the 

complex transfer function of the channel, including frequency-selective characteristics. By taking 

the Fourier transform of the measured transfer function, the power delay profile and root-meansquare (RMS) delay spread of the channel are found in post processing. 

The VNA acts as both transmitter and receiver in this system. The transmitting section of the 

VNA steps through the frequencies a single frequency at a time. The signal is amplified and fed 

to a transmit antenna, as shown in Figure 1. The received signal is returned to the VNA via a

fiber optic cable. Sending the received signal along the fiber optic cable back to the VNA 

eliminates the loss and phase changes that would be associated with RF coaxial cables between 

the receive antenna and the transmit antenna, allowing characterization of the complex radio 

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

to true time-domain-based measurement instruments. One disadvantage is that a time-varying 

channel may change during the long acquisition time.

In Figure 1, the system is configured for a 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. Omnidirectional antennas were used in our 

measurements because they are most often used in public safety applications. We used a discone 

for 700 MHz, and a monopole for 4900 MHz, both vertically polarized. Identical antennas were 

used at transmit and receive sites. Our four-port VNA enabled us to connect simultaneously to 

separate antennas for the 700 MHz and 4900 MHz bands. The synchronized fiber optic link 

between receive antennas and the VNA receive port enabled us to attain link distances up to 

200 m.

In this work, we report path loss relative to a 4 m reference. The transmit antennas were set on a 

cart, and mounted to a positioner. The positioner is a motor-controlled, two-arm device that 

enabled us to move the transmit antennas in a Cartesian coordinate plane parallel to the ground. 

The positioner range is 0.5 m by 0.5 m. The receive antennas were mounted on tripods, and were 

moved manually from location to location. All antenna heights were approximately 1.6 m above 

the ground (to the top of the antennas).

To make a measurement, the vector network analyzer is first calibrated by use of standard 
8

techniques where known impedance standards are measured. The calibration enables us to 

correct for the response of the fiber optic system, amplifiers, and any other passive elements and 

electronics used in the measurement. We also high-pass filter our measurements in post 

processing to suppress the large, low-frequency oscillation that occurs in the optical fiber link.

Because the received signals measured during our field tests tend to be quite 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 for path-loss 

measurements.

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 no more 

than 0 dBm. An intermediate-frequency (IF) averaging bandwidth of around 1 kHz was used to 

average the received signal. We typically recorded 101 points per frequency band, with a 

frequency spacing of 1 MHz. The total sweep time was approximately 2 ms, giving a dwell time

of approximately 20 μs per point. For the calibration process, the external attenuation was 40 dB 

for the high bands and 20 dB for the low bands.

2.2. Path Loss and Delay-Spread Calculations

2.2.1 Path loss

Our wideband measurements provide a channel transfer function H(f), where H(f) typically is 

derived from the measured transmission parameter S21(f). Because S parameters are ratios of 

voltage traveling waves that cannot provide absolute power, we find path loss with respect to a 

free-space reference measurement. To find the frequency-dependent path loss between the 

transmit and receive antennas, we first compute |H(f)|2/|Hr(f)|2, where Hr(f) is a free-space 

reference made at a known distance dr from the transmit antenna. The use of a ratio to find the 

path loss enables us to calibrate out the antenna response of the system. We correct the 

measurements for the free-space path loss between the transmit antenna and the reference 

location by dividing |Hr(f)|2by (4 dr/

2

. The correction factor, i.e., (4 dr/

2

, comes from the 

Friis free space equation:

,

4

( )

2

L d

PG G

P d

t t r

r

(1)

where 

P (d) r

is the received power at separation distance d (in meters),

Gt

and 

Gr

are the gain of 

the transmit and receive antennas, L is the system loss factor not related to propagation, and is 

the free space wavelength. Note that 

d dr

in (1) when correcting for the reference location.

In addition, we can also compute the excess path loss, which is important for our discussion on 

measurement uncertainties to follow. To find the excess path loss, we additionally reduce the 

total path loss by the expected free-space path loss over the separation distance d between 

transmit and receive antennas. To do this, we divide the measurement of |H(f)|2by (4 d )

2

. 

Equivalently, we can multiply |H(f)|2/|Hr(f)|2 by (dR/d)

2

. The distance d may be measured or 
9

estimated from maps, depending on the environment. This provides the loss in excess of that 

which would be measured at the same distance in free space. We note that communication 

engineers typically think of excess path loss as a single-frequency or narrowband measurement. 

However, VNA measurements provide a much richer data set because they include both 

magnitude and phase information over a broad frequency range.

The reference measurement is made at a specified distance and may be acquired either during 

field tests or from a laboratory measurement. In the field, the measurement includes 

environmental effects, and we use time-domain gating to minimize reflections on the free-space 

reference, in other words, to isolate the LOS path form environment reflections. If we are not 

able to gate out the reflections satisfactorily, the reference measurement is made in a laboratory 

facility such as an anechoic chamber or an open-area test site. In this case, we use the same 

antennas and measurement system set-up as were used in the field. For the measurements shown 

below, we used a four-meter reference made at the NIST open area test site. The two antennas 

were mounted 1.6 m and 5 m above the ground plane, for the 4900 MHz and 700 MHz bands, 

respectively (see Figure 4). We chose this set-up to balance the need to be in the antenna far field 

of our lowest frequency of interest (700 MHz, with = 0.43 m in free space) for the results 

reported here, while keeping the reference measurement as free from environmental reflections 

as possible.

2.2.2 Delay Spread Data Processing

The time-domain representation of the signal was calculated from the path-loss data in post 

processing. Baseband (complex envelope) channel impulse responses were computed from the 

transfer functions by first windowing with a Hamming window to reduce delay-domain 

sidelobes. This technique is often employed with VNA measurements, for example [23]. Then 

the windowed transfer functions were inverse-Fourier-transformed to obtain channel impulse 

responses. For a channel impulse response denoted h( ti), the corresponding i

th

(―instantaneous‖) power delay profile (PDP) was computed as Pi( )=|h( ti)|2. The channel 

impulse response h( ti) represents the channel output at time ti due to an impulse input at time 

ti- , and is given by [13]

pi

ki

L

k

ki

j

i ki h t e

1

( , ) ( ) , (2)

where i indexes the i

th PDP, Lpi is the number of multipath components in the ith PDP, and the 

amplitude and phase of the k

th multipath component in the ith PDP are ki and ki, respectively. 

The is a Dirac delta function, and ki represents the delay of the k

th multipath components of the 

i

th PDP. Generally, ki and ki are functions of time, but for each PDP in our case they can be 

considered constants due to the static nature of the scattering environment. Thus, the PDP Pi( )

can be expressed as
10

Li

k

Pi ki ki

1

2

( ) | | ( ). (3)

In order to separate actual multipath components from noise, we also gathered pure noise 

transfer functions, denoted by N(f). These were obtained with the VNA transmit ports terminated 

in matched loads, so the receive antennas received ―ambient‖ noise only. From the N(f) transfer 

functions, we computed complex baseband time-delay-domain noise samples. The noise samples 

were judged Gaussian by computing the Kullback-Leibler divergence DKL [24], a goodness-of-fit 

measure for probability density functions. If DKL equals zero, the fit to the Gaussian density is 

perfect; as DKL increases, the goodness of the fit decreases. Values of DKL were always less than 

0.06, and typically DKL < 0.02, indicating that the noise can be considered Gaussian.

We then set a noise threshold by means of the algorithm in [25], based upon the measured noise 

variance. All PDP samples below the noise threshold were discarded, so that the false-alarm 

probability means that for each sample in Pi( ), the probability of mistaking a noise component 

for a multipath component was 0.01, or one noise sample mistaken for a multipath component

per 100 PDP samples. Figure 5 (a) shows typical PDPs for LOS and NLOS conditions for the 

700 MHz band, and Figure 5 (b) is an analogous figure for the 4900 MHz band. Note that all 

PDPs were normalized and delay-aligned by time-shifting back by the estimated direct-path 

delay, which was based upon the measured distances in Table I. In addition, we truncated all 

PDPs after collecting the first 99 % of the PDP energy. In Figure 5, a dynamic range is also 

indicated. We define the dynamic range as the difference in decibels between the PDP peak and 

the noise threshold. Mean dynamic ranges were above 18 dB for NLOS cases, and above 39 dB 

for LOS cases. Several PDPs had dynamic range less than 10 dB, and these were judged as 

having too low a signal-to-noise ratio, and were therefore discarded.

From the PDPs, we found the RMS delay spread. RMS delay spread is calculated as the second 

central moment of the power-delay profile of a measured signal [26]-[28]. Figure 3 shows the 

power-delay profile for a representative building propagation measurement. The peak level 

usually occurs when the signal first arrives at the receive antenna, although in high multipath

environments we sometimes see the signal build up over time to a peak value and then fall off. 

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 [28]. For the measurements described in the following 

sections, we defined the minimum dynamic range to be approximately 40 dB below the peak 

value, although this value was reduced for lower signal levels. For the illustrative measurement 

shown in Figure 3, we extended the window down to 70 dB below the peak value. Whether we 

use a 40 dB or a 70 dB threshold, the RMS delay spread does not change appreciably due to the 

almost constant slope of the power decay curve.

The RMS delay spread σ , can be defined as

2

2

R M S . . . . (2)

(4)

In (4), is defined as the average value of the power-delay profile in the defined dynamic range 
11

window, and 

2

is the variance of the power-delay profile within this window. Another delay 

spread measure that is sometimes used is the delay window [29]. The delay window is the 

duration that contains x % of the channel impulse response energy, and this is denoted W ,x; 

Table 2 lists average PDP delay windows for x = 90 % energy. To determine W ,x, we use a 

symmetric window that finds the ―middle‖ x % energy. That is, for our example with x = 90, the 

delay window neglects the earliest 5 % and the latest 5 % of the channel impulse response 

energy. The last delay-domain dispersion measure that we list is the delay interval [29]. The 

delay interval I ,X is defined as the duration of the channel impulse response containing all 

impulses above X dB down from the largest impulse.

3. Experiment Set-up and Measurement Uncertainties in Denver, Colorado

3.1. Experiment Set-up

The measurements were taken outdoors in the financial district of downtown Denver on 

Saturday, June 20, 2009. This area contains many large (over 20-story) buildings. Figure 6

shows an illustration of the test area constructed from a Google map view.1The test area was in 

the block between 17th and 18th Streets, and between Welton Street and Glenarm Place. Figure 7

shows the 17th Street entrance into the building complex. Street widths are on the order of 20 m. 

Three transmitter locations and eleven receive antenna locations were used for a total of 33 

transmit/receive location pairs. Figure 6 also shows a photograph of the two receiver antennas 

located at position R5 on the corner of Welton and 17th Streets. Figure 8 shows the sidewalk 

areas where the experiments took place, and Figure 9 shows the three transmitter locations. LOS

link distances ranged from 10 m to 80 m. NLOS link distances are described in one of two ways: 

(1) by an ―L-shape,‖ with the first distance d1 corresponding to the LOS distance from the 

transmit to a corner (e.g., T1 to R5 in Figure 6), and the second distance d2 corresponding 

to the distance from the corner to the receive (e.g., R5 to R9 in Figure 6); or, 

(2) by a ―U-shape,‖ with d1 as previously defined, d2 the corner-to-corner distance, and d3 

defined as the final distance from the second corner to the receive (e.g., R9 to R10 in

Figure 6). Table 1 lists all these distances. Note that there is no Rx1 data; Rx1 was 

located indoors, and those data are not included in this paper. This approach for 

specifying distances in the urban environment has been used by others, for example [30].

For each band, we measured H(f) twice at each of the nine transmit antenna positions (for each 

physical transmit/receive location pair), yielding 18 transfer functions per transmit/receive

location pair. The nine transmit antenna positions corresponded to nine points on the Cartesian 

grid of the positioner, with separation between each point equal to 25 cm in both dimensions. 

Relative separation of grid positions is different in the two bands, but our results and analysis for 

each band individually are unaffected by this. Spatial channel information for both bands should 

be of interest even if array characteristics are not identical in the two bands.

 

1 © 2009 Google, Map Data © 2009 Tele Atlas.
12

Figure 10 shows a plan view diagram of the positioner, with the nine individual antenna 

positions labeled P1-P9. With 33 transmit/receive pair combinations, a total of 18 33=594 

transfer functions were collected. The measurement bandwidth for both bands was set to 100 

MHz, with, but strong interference in the lower part of the 700 MHz band reduced that usable 

bandwidth to 75 MHz. Our transfer functions thus covered the 725 MHz to 800 MHz and 4.9 

GHz to 5 GHz frequency bands. The frequency resolution of 1 MHz enabled a time measurement 

resolution of a 1 s maximum delay.

For much of the time during measurements, only pedestrian motion was present, although 

automobile traffic increased as the day progressed. Traffic around the block was ―stop and go,‖ 

since stoplights were present at all intersections. Auto speeds were as large as approximately 10 

m/s, which for single-scattering yields a maximum Doppler frequency at 5 GHz of 

fd=vf/c=10(5 109)/3 108167 Hz [13]. This yields a minimum channel coherence time of 

approximately tc,min 1/fd=6 ms for the 4900 MHz band. The same maximum velocity yields a 

minimum coherence time of approximately 37 ms for the upper end of the 700 MHz band. With 

each VNA sweep across the band taking approximately 2 ms, we assume the channel can be 

considered statistically wide sense stationary for each measured H(f), especially since most 

vehicle velocities were less than our cited maximum. With our measurement procedure, we were 

unable to measure fading dynamics. Studies of the fading statistics of this propagation 

environment, including the Ricean K-factor, are currently a subject of research at NIST.

3.2. Measurement Uncertainties

Following the convention described in [31], the uncertainties associated with this measurement 

process can be broken into two categories, Type A (random) and Type B (systematic). The 

wireless channel is inherently non-static with respect to time, frequency, and position, and the 

data collected are impacted by these parameters. However, the measurement system itself does 

not change between data collections. Table 3 describes the various uncertainties associated with 

the measurement system while Table 4 contains additional uncertainties in our estimate of the 

mean path loss, such as the variability of the measured channel response, also known as smallscale fading (see [13],[14]).

To quantify the repeatability of the VNA measurements, which is a Type A uncertainty, we use 

multiple measurements made in the controlled environment of 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 utilized a set of reference measurements conducted 

with the same antennas and measurement set-up used in Denver, with the exception of a long 

coaxial cable between the antenna and the VNA. Free-space measurements were collected at 2 m 

increments for antenna spacings from 4 m to 10 m for the 700 MHz band and at 1 m increments 

from 2 m to 5 m for the 4900 MHz band. Figure 11 shows the excess path loss for this series of 

reference measurements, calculated by selecting one of the measurements as the reference (the 0 

dB result is the reference measurement). Four different sets of measurements were performed, 

two covering the 700 MHz band and two covering the 4900 MHz band. In each band, one set of 

measured data covered only the band of interest, that is, the 725 MHz to 800 MHz and the 4900 

MHz to 5000 MHz frequency ranges. The third set of measurements was conducted between 300 
13

MHz and 1 GHz. From this, data around the 700 MHz band were extracted. The fourth set of 

data covered 1 GHz to 10 GHz. From this, data around the 4900 MHz band were extracted. 

(Note that a 75 MHz range was used in the 700 MHz band rather than the full 100 MHz because 

in the field tests there was significant interference below 725 MHz, and, thus, the subsequent 

data processing only used the 725 MHz to 800 MHz data.) We corrected for differences in 

distance using a free-space assumption (see (1)) so that measurements made at each separation 

could be averaged directly. We then computed the standard deviation of the eight measurements.

For the 4900 MHz reference measurements, we computed a standard deviation of 0.55 dB for the 

eight measurements. The antenna heights for these measurements were 1.6 m, and therefore 

some ground reflections likely increased the standard deviation of these measurements. The 

separation between antennas was measured using a tape measure. This likely increased the 

standard deviation as well. For the 700 MHz band, the antennas were located at 5 m above the 

ground, resulting in less ground reflection contributions. The standard deviation for the eight 

measurements was approximately 0.3 dB. Thus, the estimated Type A uncertainty for the 

system,

sys u

, would be 0.3 dB for the 700 MHz band and 0.55 dB for the 4900 MHz band. 

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

include the impact of temperature changes on the system measurement of S21. The analysis in 

[32] estimated a VNA drift over three days in a laboratory setting as 0.1 dB, or 

uVNA 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, i.e., 

ufiber 0.1 dB . 

The combined uncertainty for a measurement of path loss using our VNA measurement set-up is 

then 

u u u u

2

VNA

2

fiber

2

measurement system,combined sys

. (5)

For the measurement set-up we used in Denver, this value is 0.33 dB and 0.57 dB for the 700 

MHz and 4900 MHz bands, respectively. 

A second source of random, Type A, uncertainty in our estimate of the path loss in the urban 

canyon can be attributed to small-scale fading arising from multiple reflections in the local area 

around each test location. Even though the building environment is deterministic, small-scale 

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

cars, truck, and pedestrians moved randomly through the environment during testing. By 

acquiring path loss data over multiple frequencies and positions for each transmit/receive 

antenna location, the effects of small-scale fading can be averaged out. Thus, experiment design, 

rather than equipment repeatability, leads to this source of uncertainty. Such variability in the 

channel is of interest to communications engineers and is reported separately here before being 

combined with the VNA measurement uncertainty. 

The Type A standard uncertainty in our estimate of the mean path loss at each measurement 
14

location is based on the standard deviation of the eighteen measurements (two measurements per 

each of the nine positioners locations) made at each of the twelve transmit/receive locations. We 

consider the behavior exhibited over a local region, i.e., the nine locations of the positioner, and 

calculate the standard deviation over frequency at each of the nine positions. We then calculate 

the standard deviation arising from small-scale fading between each of the nine positions. These 

two uncertainties, labeled 

uspacing

and 

ufreq

, are provided in Table 4. Table 3 also lists the mean 

path loss, calculated over each of the nine positioner locations and over the 75 (700 MHz) or 100 

(4900 MHz) frequencies. Because we made each measurement twice, 18 individual estimates of 

the path loss are averaged to obtain the value reported in Table 3. 

The combined uncertainty in a mean path loss measurement is calculated as: 

u u u u us u

2

freq

2

pacing

2

sys

2

fiber

2

c VNA

. (6)

Table 4 lists the combined uncertainty values for all the transmit/receive antenna location 

pairings. The largest contribution to the uncertainty in the mean path loss is due to the standard 

deviation across the frequency band. The mean path loss value (based on a 4 m reference 

location) and error bars for ± two standard deviations at the twelve transmit/receive locations are 

shown in Figure 12 and Figure 13 for the 700 MHz and 4900 MHz bands, respectively. In this 

case, the standard deviation represents the standard uncertainty in the estimate of the mean path 

loss and the error bars represent a coverage factor of two. Under the assumption of a normal 

distribution in mean path loss values, the coverage factor of two corresponds to a 95% 

confidence interval.

4. Experiment Results

4.1. Path Loss Results

With a known reference path loss and a calibrated VNA, we also used our VNA measurements 

to estimate propagation path loss. For each transmit/receive location pair, we have 18 path loss 

measurements. These correspond to three groups of six measurements on our Cartesian 

positioner: group one represents the six measurements (two measurements at each of the three 

positioner points) at distance d, group two represents the six measurements at distance d + 0.25

m, and group three represents the six measurements at d + 0.5 m. (Recall that we have nine 

points on our Cartesian grid for each transmit antenna location, and at each point we collected 

two transfer functions—see Figure 3.)

To attempt to average out the effects of small-scale (multipath) fading, we estimated the path 

loss as the difference between the known transmit power at band center (equal to the power at 

any frequency in the band) and the average of the magnitude squared of the received transfer 

function, with the average taken across all frequency points in the band (75 MHz for the 700 

MHz band, and 100 MHz for the 4900 MHz band). As discussed, measurements were made with 

respect to a 4 m reference; that is, antenna gains are also removed.
15

Figure 14 shows a plot of path loss in decibels versus 10log10(d/dr) for the 700 MHz band, 

transmitter location T1, where dr=4 m is the reference distance. This reference distance was also 

used for the 4900 MHz band. Reference measurements were made at the NIST open area test site 

in Boulder, CO which closely simulates free-space conditions, with the nearest reflecting objects 

well outside the time window of the measurement. Ground reflections were mitigated by 

elevating the antennas sufficiently during the reference measurement. Linear fits on the log-log 

scale are also shown in Figure 14. These are least-squares fits, and for the LOS case, these fits 

correspond to the following path loss model:

LOS LOS LOS L (d) L(dr

) 10n log(d / dr) X , (7)

where nLOS is the propagation path loss exponent, and XLOS is a zero-mean Gaussian random 

variable with standard deviation X dB. For NLOS L-shaped paths we used

NLOS 1 2 LOS 1 NLOS 2 1 NLOS ( ) 10 log( / )

~

L (d ,d ) L d n d d Lc X , (8)

where nNLOS and XNLOS are analogous to the LOS parameter definitions, distances d1 and d2

correspond to L-shaped path distances (see Section 3), and 

LOS 1 LOS 1 LOS ( ) ( )

~

L d L d X

, so that we do 

not apply the Gaussian random variable twice for the NLOS path loss. The parameter Lc is the 

―corner loss‖ added to the LOS path loss at distance d1; this loss term was also used in [16]. The 

corner loss corresponds to the ―step‖ discontinuity between the LOS and NLOS fits; see Figure 

14. The intercept value L(dr) is equal to the free-space value at band center for both bands; i.e., 

L700MHz(dr)=42 dB, and L4900MHz(dr)=58 dB. 

Table 5 shows values for the path-loss model parameters. Path-loss exponents for the LOS case 

are less than those for NLOS regions, as expected. Based upon our transmit locations, the NLOS 

exponents also increase with the distance from the transmitter to the corner (d1 in Table 1). This 

same dependence on ―corner distance‖ was also observed in [30]. Our measurements are in the 

smaller range of corner distances covered in [30], but the range of path-loss exponents found 

generally agrees with values given in [30]. For the LOS case, exponents less than two may 

indicate waveguiding by the urban canyon walls; this is most noticeable for the 4900 MHz band. 

For the 700 MHz band LOS results, fitted path-loss exponents are generally slightly larger than 

that for free space (n=2), except for transmit location 3; as per the model, path loss variation is 

quantified by the Gaussian random variables (X) in (7) and (8). Transmit location 3 was very 

close to the building wall on 17th Street, and was partly shadowed by several pillars that extended 

out from the wall. The NLOS exponents ranged from 3.6 to nearly 6.

4.2. Delay Spread Results

4.2.1 Power Delay Profile Results for Individual Transmit/Receive Antenna Pairings 

As discussed in Section 3, for each individual pairing between a receive and a transmit antenna, 

we calculate the channel transfer functions. We measured a transfer function for each of the nine 

positions available with the positioner, and repeated the process twice (18 per transmit/receive

pairing). Channel response |H(f)|

2

and PDP results are plotted in Appendix II (700 MHz) and 
16

Appendix III (4900 MHz). The left-hand plots show the mean of |H(f)|

2 along with the standard 

deviation calculated over the nine positions and two repeat measurements. The mean of |N(f)|2is 

also shown. The right-hand plots show the corresponding PDP, with the mean and standard 

deviation of the τrms values calculated over position for the two repeats. 

In Figure 15, the mean 700 MHz PDP results (calculated over nine positions and two repeats) are 

plotted versus receive antenna location for the three transmit locations, respectively. Similarly, 

Figure 16 plots the mean 4900 MHz PDP results against the receive antenna locations for the 

three transmit locations, respectively. These plots also include a plot of the standard deviation

(±σ) to indicate the variably of the PDP at those locations. Note that data were not available for 

the Rx10-Tx3 calculation due to the insufficient margin between the signal and the noise to 

calculate the RMS delay spread.

For the 700 MHz results, Rx6, which is an NLOS pairing for all three transmitter locations, 

shows the highest mean RMS delay spread (over nine positions and two repeats) for Tx1 and 

Tx2 pairings, and the second highest mean for Tx3. The location of Tx3 is quite near a building 

surface and, thus, some difference in behavior compared to Tx1 and Tx2 is expected. Another 

interesting observation is the behavior of Rx10 in the 4900 MHz band, where the long RMS 

delay spread indicates that the signal propagates via multiple reflections (i.e., significant 

attenuation and/or multipath contribution) through the atrium of the building shown in Figure 7, 

even though a potential path of propagation exists through glass doors and an open lobby. This is 

readily observed by individual Rx9 and Rx10 results in Appendix II and III. In both the 700 

MHz and 4900 MHz bands, both the |H(f)|

2

and corresponding PDP curves show the Rx10 values 

are much closer to the noise floor than the Rx9 values, and in some instances, the Rx10 values 

are below the noise floor. The PDP’s in these cases are unlikely to be highly accurate.

4.2.2 Aggregate Power Delay Profile Results

The average power delay profiles, computed separately over all LOS PDPs and all NLOS PDPs

and for each frequency band, are shown in Figure 17. Here, we see that the average PDPs look 

similar for the two bands. Table 2 provides delay-spread statistics for both cases and bands.

As expected, NLOS delay spreads are substantially larger than those for LOS cases. Also as 

expected, delay spreads generally increase with link distance [33]. The 4900 MHz band delay 

spread values are also slightly larger than those for the 700 MHz band. This relationship does not 

always hold; delay spreads generally (but not always) decreased with increasing frequency in 

[34], [35], but it is not clear whether signal-to-noise ratio and dynamic range were equal in all 

bands in the results of [34] and [35]. This means that comparison of delay spread trends may not 

be completely fair. This holds true in our case as well: because we used a higher-power external 

amplifier at the transmit end of the VNA for the 4900 MHz band, the 4900 MHz dynamic ranges 

were generally larger than those for the 700 MHz band; mean values of dynamic range were 38 

dB for the 4900 MHz band and 28 dB for the 700 MHz band. This can account for some of the 

larger delay spreads we observed at 4900 MHz. In addition, results in [34] and [35] were not for 

ground-based settings.
17

Because our measurements spanned several hours, the propagation conditions did not remain 

constant; conditions also of course change with transmit-receive locations. This can be quantified 

in the delay domain by use of ―instantaneous‖ delay spread measures [36]. Essentially, we 

compute the delay spread measures for each PDP individually. We can then collect statistics on 

these values over the sets of PDPs to quantify the range of variation of the delay spread 

measures. Figure 18 and Figure 19 show histograms of instantaneous RMS-DS for the two 

bands, over all transmit/receive locations. These plots demonstrate the expected result that the 

majority of the NLOS delay spreads are larger than the majority of the LOS delay spreads, and 

that the range of delay spreads is a significant fraction of the mean. We can quantify this range 

via the coefficient of variation CV= RMS-DS RMS-DS the ratio of delay spread standard deviation 

to delay spread mean: values of CV here are 0.27 to 0.34 for NLOS and 0.49 to 0.56 for LOS 

cases. Table 6 provides additional statistics on the instantaneous RMS-DS, and Table 7 shows 

analogous statistics for the 90 % energy delay window W ,90 and 25 dB delay interval I ,25. As 

expected for this peer-to-peer, short-range setting, RMS-DS values are much smaller than those 

for cellular; for example, the COST207 typical urban cellular channel has RMS-DS ~ 1 s [34]. 

Our delay spread values are also substantially smaller than those in [34], [35] in which median 

delay spreads for their (elevated-antenna) measurements range from 300 ns to 700 ns in 

frequency bands from 430 MHz to 6 GHz.

4.2.3 Estimated Multipath Component Contribution 

When creating channel models, one would like to know the number of multipath components

present. We used the algorithm in [37] to estimate the number of multipath components, denoted 

Lp, in each transfer function. This algorithm, which is a modified multiple signal classification

(MUSIC) algorithm for frequency estimation, uses the minimum description length criterion [38]

to determine the number of multipath components, based upon modeling the time-invariant 

transfer function as a harmonic function of delay; that is, the Fourier transform of the i

th channel 

impulse response is viewed as a function of delay at our given set of measured frequency 

points {fki}. Hence, from (2) and [38, (3), (4)], we have

p i

ki

p i

ki

L

k

ki

j

i ki

L

k

ki

j

i ki

H t e j f

H f t e j f

1

1

 ( , ) exp( 2 )

( , ) exp( 2 ) 

(9)

and this representation enables use of MUSIC on this dual function for estimating the discrete 

delays. Note that, to our knowledge, this algorithm has previously been used only for indoor 

channels. Summary statistics for the number of multipath components are presented in Table 8. 

These statistics count the number of components within a 25 dB threshold of the peak 

component in each PDP, where we truncated each PDP before applying the MUSIC algorithm. 

We employed this threshold because most communication systems typically do not operate at 

signal-to-noise ratios much larger than this value, and hence models that retain only the largest 

components are common, e.g., those within a 20 dB threshold in [39]. Typically, one would 

expect the NLOS cases to have a substantially larger number of multipath components than the 
18

LOS cases, but the NLOS numbers are only slightly larger here. We attribute this to the lower 

dynamic range of the NLOS PDPs. 

The distribution of the number of multipath components Lp was found to be best fit by a 

modified uniform distribution. Specifically, let Lpmin equal the minimum value of Lp and Lpmax its 

maximum value (see Table 8). We denote the probability mass function for Lp by Pr(Lp=m), with 

integer m {Lpmin, Lpmin+1, ... Lpmax}. The mass function has weight p0 at Lpmax and is uniform 

with weight equal to (1-p0)/(Lpmax-Lpmin) from Lpmin to Lpmax-1, or

0 max

min min max

max min

0

, 

, 1 1

1

Pr( )

p

p p p

p p p

p m L

m L , L , ...L -

L L

p

L m . (10)

Values of p0 are also listed in Table 8. As seen from Table 8, 18-21 multipath components 

suffice for the 100 MHz channel at 4900 MHz, and 11-14 multipath components suffice for the 

75 MHz channel at 700 MHz. For construction of channel models for smaller values of 

bandwidths, multipath components can be combined, as in [40], [41].

The distribution of the powers in these multipath components was obtained by fitting to the 

average PDPs of Figure 17. For these cases, we employed the following models:

( ) exp( )

,LOS 0 1 P c c

(11)

Nc

k

P bkbk k

1

,NLOS 0 1

( ) exp[ ( )], (12)

where Nc=3 in (12) is the number of clusters of multipath components for the NLOS case. The 

use of clusters is common in channel models for other settings as well; for example, the indoor 

setting in [42] and the outdoor macrocell setting in [39]. Our clusters were based upon visual 

inspection of the average PDPs. They are better defined for the 700 MHz band data, and we see 

that the 4900 MHz band clusters tend to overlap more substantially (see Figure 17). The model

coefficients are given in Table 9, where the first cluster delay 1=0. 

For the delays of the multipath components within clusters, other researchers have employed 

randomly distributed delays; for example Poisson in [42], or for ultrawideband channels, 

uniformly distributed delays [43], or Weibull distributed delays [44], [45]. If we base the delay 

distribution upon the average PDPs, uniform distributions of delays fit the LOS cases in intervals 

[0, 500 ns) for the 700 MHz band and [0, 550 ns) for the 4900 MHz band. The average PDPs for 

the NLOS cases could also be fit with uniformly distributed delays. Yet better models for the 

delay distributions were derived by collecting statistics on delays over all the measured PDPs. 

The results of this were that the LOS cases were best fit by an exponential distribution of delays, 

and the NLOS cases were best fit by a Weibull distribution [46] of delays. Specifically, the 

multipath component delay probability density functions are as follows:
19 p ( ) exp( / v)/ v

,LOS

(13)

a a

p ( ) exp 1

,NLOS

, (14)

where in the Weibull density of (14), is the shape factor and 

a

is the scale parameter. 

Parameter values for these multipath component delay probability density functions are given in 

Table 10.

Finally, note that in other models (see [39], [42]), for simplicity, the decay constants bk1 of (12)

for the decays within each cluster are assumed identical. As with our results here though, this is 

not always true: some ultrawideband models described in [43] employ different values of decay 

constants per cluster. If desired for simplicity, one could of course select a single value of decay 

constant from our models as well.

5. Summary of Results, and Conclusion

Here we reported on channel measurements and models for urban peer-to-peer, ground-based 

channels in the 700 MHz and 4900 MHz public safety frequency bands. This configuration and 

band has not been previously studied. Non-mobile outdoor measurements for link distances up to 

approximately 100 m were made with a vector network analyzer and omnidirectional antennas at 

a height of 1.6 m. 

The uncertainties in our data associated with the measurement equipment are estimated at less 

than 0.6 dB. This is much smaller than the uncertainty caused by small scale fading within the 

channel itself, typically considered as the variability within the channel. This channel variability 

can also be viewed as a measurement uncertainty, and we that those values range from 4.5 to 7.1 

dB. Thus, calculations based on these measured data such as the PDPs are not impacted 

significantly by the measurement equipment uncertainties. 

For propagation path loss, we found path-loss exponents to range from 1.3-4.4 for LOS cases, 

and from 3.6-5.8 for NLOS cases around corners. In agreement with results found by other 

researchers, delay dispersion statistics appear similar for the two bands. The 90th percentile 

values for root-mean-square delay spread range from approximately 100 ns for LOS cases at 700 

MHz, to 170 ns for NLOS cases at 4900 MHz, with maximum values of delay spread near 300 

ns. We employed a ―dual MUSIC‖ algorithm to determine the number of multipath components, 

and found that for our measurement bandwidths of 75 MHz at 700 MHz, and 100 MHz at 4900 

MHz, mean values of the number of multipath components are 11 and 17, respectively. Leastsquare fits for the powers and delays of the multipath components were also computed, yielding 

complete statistical delay domain channel models. 

—————————

Disclaimer: Mention of any company names serves only for identification, and does not 

constitute or imply endorsement of such a company or of its products.
20

—————————

We thank members of the technical staff of the Electromagnetics Division 687, who developed 

the measurement set-up, Mike Francis, Perry Wilson, Mike Kelley and Dereck Orr for 

programmatic support. This work was funded by the NIST Public Safety Communications 

Research Laboratory within the NIST Office of Law Enforcement Standards of NIST, Dereck 

Orr, Program Manager.
21

6. References

[1] Statement of Requirements: Background on Public Safety Wireless Communications, 

The SAFECOM Program, Department of Homeland Security, Vol. 1, March 10, 2004.

[2] M. Worrell and A. MacFarlane, Phoenix Fire Department Radio System Safety Project, 

Phoenix Fire Dept. Final Report, Oct. 8, 2004.

http://www.ci.phoenix.az.us/FIRE/radioreport.pdf

[3] 9/11 Commission Report, National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United 

States, 2004. http://govinfo.library.unt.edu/911/report/index.htm

[4] Final Report for September 11, 2001 New York World Trade Center terrorist attack, 

Wireless Emergency Response Team (WERT), 

http://www.wert-help.org/WERTv2_files/WERT%20FINAL%20REPORT.pdfOct. 2001.

[5] C.L. Holloway, G. Koepke, D. Camell, K.A. Remley, D.F. Williams, S. Schima, S. 

Canales, and D.T. Tamura, ―Propagation and Detection of Radio Signals Before, During 

and After the Implosion of a Thirteen Story Apartment Building,‖ NIST Technical Note 

1540, Boulder, CO, May 2005.

[6] C.L. Holloway, G. Koepke, D. Camell, K.A. Remley, and D.F. Williams, ―Radio 

Propagation Measurements During a Building Collapse: Applications for First 

Responders,‖ Proc. Intl. Symp. Advanced Radio Tech., Boulder, CO, March 2005, pp. 

61-63.

[7] C.L. Holloway, G. Koepke, D. Camell, K.A. Remley, D.F. Williams, S. Schima, and D.T. 

Tamura, ―Propagation and Detection of Radio Signals Before, During and After the 

Implosion of a Large Sports Stadium (Veterans’ Stadium in Philadelphia),‖ NIST 

Technical Note 1541, Boulder, CO, October 2005.

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

Johnk, D. Novotny, W. F. Young, G Hough, M. C. McKinley Y. Becquet, J Korsnes, 

―Measurements to Support Broadband Modulated-Signal Radio Transmissions for the 

Public safety Sector,‖ NIST Technical Note 1546, Boulder CO, April 2008.

[9] T. L. Doumi, ―Spectrum Considerations for Public Safety in the United States,‖ IEEE 

Comm. Mag., vol. 44, no. 1, pp. 30-37, January 2006.

[10] K. Balachandran, K. C. Budka, T. P. Chu, T. L. Doumi, J. H. Kang, ―Mobile Responder 

Communication Networks for Public Safety,‖ IEEE Comm. Mag., vol. 44, no. 1, pp. 56-

64, January 2006.

[11] TIA, ―TIA-902.BAAB-A Wideband Air Interface Scalable Adaptive Modulation (SAM) 

Physical Layer Specification – Public Safety Wideband Data Standards Project – Digital 

Radio Technical Standards,‖ Sept. 2003, www.tiaonline.org.
22

[12] IEEE 802 standards web site, http://standards.ieee.org/getieee802/portfolio.html, July 

2010.

[13] J. D. Parsons, The Mobile Radio Propagation Channel, 2nd ed., John Wiley & Sons, New 

York, NY, 2000.

[14] A. F. Molisch, Wireless Communications, John Wiley & Sons, New York, NY, 2005.

[15] C. L. Holloway, G. Koepke, D. Camell, K. A. Remley, S. A. Schima, M. McKinley, R. T. 

Johnk, ―Propagation and Detection of Radio Signals Before, During, and After the 

Implosion of a Large Convention Center,‖ NIST Technical Note 1542, June 2006.

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

Attenuation of Radio Wave Signals Coupled into Twelve Large Building Structures,‖ 

NIST Technical Note 1545, February 2008.

[17] W. F. Young, C. L. Holloway, G. Koepke, D. Camell, Y. Becquet, K. A. Remley, ―Radio 

Wave Signal Propagation Into Large Building Structures Part 1: CW Signal Attenuation 

and Variability,‖ IEEE Trans. Ant. Prop., pp. 1279-1289, April 2010.

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

Johnk, W. F. Young, ―Radio Wave Signal Propagation Into Large Building Structures 

Part 2: Characterization of Multipath,‖ IEEE Trans. Ant. Prop., pp. 1290-1301, April 

2010.

[19] H. Fielitz, K. A. Remley, C. L. Holloway, Q. Zhang; Q. Wu, D. W. Matolak, 

―Reverberation-Chamber Test Environment for Outdoor Urban Wireless Propagation 

Studies,‖ IEEE Ant. Wireless Prop. Lett., pp. 52-56, March 2010.

[20] C. Gentile, N. Golmie, K. A. Remley, C. L. Holloway, W. F. Young, ―A channel 

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

May, 2010, pp. 1-6.

[21] E. Genender, C. L. Holloway, K. A. Remley, J. M. Ladbury, G. Koepke, H. Garbe, 

―Simulating the Multipath Channel With a Reverberation Chamber: Application to Bit 

Error Rate Measurements,‖ IEEE Trans. EMC, vol. 52, no. 4, 2010, pp. 766-777.

[22] B. Davis, C. Grosvenor, R. T. Johnk, D. Novotny, J. Baker-Jarvis, M. Janezic, ―Complex 

Permittivity of Planar Building Materials Measured with an Ultra-wideband Free-field 

Antenna Measurement System,‖ Natl. Inst. Stand. Technol. J. Res., vol. 112, no. 1, Jan.-

Feb., 2007, pp. 67-73.

[23] A. Chehri, P. Fortier, P. M. Tardif, ―Frequency Domain Analysis of UWB Channel 

Propagation in Underground Mines,‖ Proc. IEEE Fall Veh. Tech. Conf., Montreal, CA, 

25-28 September 2006.
23

[24] T. M. Cover, J. Thomas, Elements of Information Theory, 2nd ed., John Wiley & Sons, 

New York, NY, 1991.

[25] E. S. Sousa, V. M. Jovanovic, C. Daigneault, ―Delay Spread Measurements for the 

Digital Cellular Channel in Toronto,‖ IEEE Trans. Veh. Tech., vol. 43, no. 4, pp. 837-

847, Nov. 1994.

[26] 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, no. 5, 

June 1987, pp. 879-889.

[27] 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.

[28] 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.

[29] International Telecommunications Union (ITU), ―Multipath Propagation and 

Parameterization of its Characteristics,‖ Rec. ITU-R P.1407.

[30] 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.

[31] B. N. Taylor, C. E. Kuyatt, ―Guidelines for Evaluating and Expressing the Uncertainty of 

NIST Measurement Results,‖ NIST Technical Note 1297, September, 1994.

[32] 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 International Symposium on Electromagnetic 

Compatibility, July 25-30, 2010. 

[33] L. J. Greenstein, V. Erceg, Y. S. Yeh, M. V. Clark, ―A New Path-Gain/Delay-Spread 

Propagation Model for Digital Cellular Channels,‖ IEEE Trans. Comm., vol. 46, no. 2, 

pp. 477-485, May 1997.

[34] 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.

[35] R. J. C. Bultitude, T. C. W. Schenk, N. A. A. Op den Kamp, N. Adnani, ―A PropagationMeasurement-Based Evaluation of Channel Characteristics and Models Pertinent to the 
24

Expansion of Mobile Radio Systems to Frequencies Beyond 2 GHz,― IEEE Trans. Veh. 

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

[36] A. F. Molisch, M. Steinbauer, ―Condensed Parameters for Characterizing Wideband 

Mobile Radio Channels,‖ Int. Journ. Wireless Inf. Networks, vol. 6, no. 3, pp. 133-154, 

1999.

[37] X. Li, K. Pahlavan, ―Super-Resolution TOA Estimation with Diversity for Indoor 

Geolocation,‖ IEEE Trans. Wireless Comm., vol. 3, no. 1, pp. 224-234, January 2004.

[38] M. Wax, T. Kailath, ―Detection of Signals by Information Theoretic Criteria,‖ IEEE 

Trans. Acoust., Speech, Signal Processing, vol. ASSP-33, pp. 387-392, April 1985.

[39] H. Asplund, A. A. Glazunov, A. F. Molisch, K. I. Pedersen, M. Steinbauer, ―The COST 

259 Directional Channel Model—Part II: Macrocells,‖ IEEE Trans. Wireless Comm., 

vol. 5, no. 12, pp. 3434-3450, December 2006.

[40] D. W. Matolak, I. Sen, W. Xiong, ―The 5-GHz Airport Surface Area Channel—Part I: 

Measurement and Modeling Results for Large Airports,‖ IEEE Trans. Veh. Tech., vol. 

57, no. 4, pp. 2014-2026, July 2008.

[41] 3rd Generation Partnership Project (3GPP), ―3GPP deployment aspects,‖ Valbonne, 

France, Tech. Rep. TR 25.943 V5.1.0, Jun. 2002.

[42] 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.

[43] A. F. Molisch, ―Ultrawideband Propagation Channels-Theory, Measurement, and 

Modeling,‖ IEEE Trans. Veh. Tech., vol. 54, no. 5, pp. 1528-1545, September 2005.

[44] R. Kattenbach, ―Statistical Distribution of Path Interarrival Times in Indoor 

Environment,‖ Proc. Spring IEEE Veh. Tech. Conf., Ottawa, Canada, pp. 548-551, 18-21 

May 1998.

[45] P. Yegani, C.D. McGillem, ―A Statistical Model for the Factory Radio Channel,‖ IEEE 

Trans. Comm., vol. 39, no. 10, pp. 1445-1454, Oct. 1991.

[46] A. Papoulis and U. Pillai, Probability, Random Variables, and Stochastic Processes, 4th 

ed. New York: McGraw-Hill, 2001.
25

Appendix I: Experiment Setups and Locations

Figure 2. Reference measurement at three meters for a dual-ridge guide horn antenna, 

transformed to the time domain. The waveform shows the antenna response, the ground-bounce 

response and the spurious environmental effects.

Ground

Transmitting

Antennas

tripod

1.6 m

VNA

Port 1 Port 4

200 m

Optical

Fiber

Receiving

Antennas

Fiber Optic

Receiver

RF Optical

Fiber Optic

Transmitter

RF Optical

Cart & 

Positioner

Ground

Transmitting

Antennas

tripod

1.6 m

VNA

Port 1 Port 4

200 m

Optical

Fiber

Receiving

Antennas

Fiber Optic

Receiver

RF Optical

Fiber Optic

Transmitter

RF Optical

Cart & 

Positioner

Figure 1. Wideband measurement system based on a vector network analyzer. Frequency-domain 

measurements, synchronized by the optical fiber link, are transformed to the time domain in post-processing. 

This enables determination of excess path loss, time-delay spread, and other figures of merit important in 

characterizing broadband modulated-signal transmissions.

20 30 40 50

Time (ns)

-1.2

-0.8

-0.4

0

0.4

0.8

1.2

S21 amplitude (V)

Antenna response

Ground bounce

Spurious

environmental

effects
26

0 400 800 1200

Time (ns)

-250

-200

-150

-100

-50

0

Power Delay Profile (dB)

Peak level

Maximum

Dynamic Range

RMS Delay Spread

Mean Delay Spread

Time (ns)

Power Delay Profile (dB)

Figure 3. Power-delay profile for a building propagation measurement. Important parameters for a 

measured signal are the peak level, the maximum dynamic range, the mean delay, and the RMS delay 

spread.
27

(a)

(b)

Figure 4. Reference tests at the NIST, Boulder open area test site (OATS) with (a) 700 MHz and 4900 

MHz antennas at a height of 1.6 m, and (b) 700 MHz antenna at a height of 5 m.
28

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000

-60

-50

-40

-30

-20

-10

0

Delay [ns]

PDP in dB

Tx1-Rx3 Example LOS PDP

Tx1-Rx7 Example NLOS PDP

Noise Threshold

Dynamic range = 37dB for Tx1-Rx3

Dynamic range = 14dB for Tx1-Rx7

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000

-80

-70

-60

-50

-40

-30

-20

-10

0

Delay [ns]

PDP in dB

Tx1-Rx3 Example LOS PDP

Tx1-Rx7 Example NLOS PDP

Noise Threshold

Dynamic range = 57dB for Tx1-Rx3

Dynamic range = 39dB for Tx1-Rx7

(a) (b)

Figure 5. Example PDPs for (a) LOS (Tx1-Rx3) and NLOS (Tx1-Rx7) locations, 700 MHz band, and (b) 

LOS (Tx1-Rx3) and NLOS (Tx1-Rx7) locations, 4900 MHz band.
29

T

T

1 R12

2

T3

R12

R9

R5

R10

T

T

1 R12

2

T3

R12

R9

R5

R10

Discone Monopole

Cart with Fiber

Optic Tx

Figure 6. Google map view of test area in downtown Denver. Transmit locations denoted T, receiver 

locations denoted R. Right: photo of Rx antennas at location R5.

Figure 7. 17th Atrium at the 17th street entrance to the 555 17th Street Building.
30

Looking into the alley from Welton Street 

towards Glenarm Place (R9 towards R10).

Looking down the 17th Street 

sidewalk from toward Welton 

Street (T2 towards R5).

Looking down the Welton Street sidewalk 

from towards 18th Street (R5 towards R9).

Figure 8. Street level views of experiment location in Denver, CO at the 555 17th Street Building.
31

Positioner

VNA

Transmitter setup: 

Location 1

Positioner

Transmitter setup: 

Location 3

Transmitter setup: 

Location 2

Transmitter setup: 

Location 1 Receiver setup: 

Location 3

Figure 9. Transmitter sites for the experiments at Denver, CO.
32

Table 1. Transmitter (Tx) to Receiver (Rx) distances (m). LOS links contain only one distance (d), and 

NLOS links contain either two (d1, d2) for L-shaped paths, or three (d1, d2, d3) for U-shaped paths.

Rx2 Rx3 Rx4 Rx5 Rx6 Rx7 Rx8 Rx9 Rx10 Rx11 Rx12

Tx1 d=10 d=20 d=30 d=40 d1=40

d2=10

d1=40

d2=20

d1=40

d2=30

d1=40

d2=40

d1=40

d2=43

d3=13

d1=40

d2=5.5

d1=40

d2=35.5

Tx2 d=50 d=60 d=70 d=80 d1=80

d2=10

d1=80

d2=20

d1=80

d2=30

d1=80

d2=40

d1=80

d2=43

d3=13

d=5.5 d=35.5

Tx3 d=36 d=46 d=56 d=66 d1=66

d2=10

d1=66

d2=20

d1=66

d2=30

d1=66

d2=40

d1=66

d2=43

d3=13

d1=14

d2=5.5

d1=14

d2=35.5

P9

P8

P7

P4

P5

P6

P3

P2

P1

0.5 m

0.5 m

Postioner 

Arms

d d+0.25 d+0.5

P9

P8

P7

P4

P5

P6

P3

P2

P1

0.5 m

0.5 m

Postioner 

Arms

d d+0.25 d+0.5

Figure 10. Plan view diagram of antenna positioner, showing nine positions.
33

Table 2. Summary Delay Spread Statistics (ns).

Condition 

(band)

RMS-DS W ,90 I ,25

LOS (700) 66 166 386

LOS (4900) 87 235 519

NLOS (700) 147 501 798

NLOS (4900) 156 528 875

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

-0.5

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

Reference test position (m)

dB 

Excess Path loss

Standard deviation of 700 MHz reference measurements: 0.298 dB

Standard deviation of 4900 MHz reference measurements: 0.552 dB

725 MHz to 800 MHz

725 MHz to 800 MHz, low freq data

4900 MHz to 5000 MHz

4900 MHz to 5000 MHz, high freq data

Excess path loss after distance correction (dB)

700 MHz reference

4900 MHz reference

Figure 11. Excess path loss for the reference data collections performed at the NIST outdoor antenna 

test site. The excess path loss is calculated relative to the 700 MHz and 4900 MHz references, 

respectively, (i.e., the 0 dB cases), after correcting for separation distances assuming free space 

propagation.
34

Table 3. List of the uncertainties in the data collection process.

Uncertainty 

Type

Uncertainty Description Method of Estimate Value (dB)

Type A

700 MHz band

Complete system through 

tests, including VNA, fiber 

optic link, and antennas

Standard deviation from 

eight independent system 

through measurements at 

Outdoor Antenna Site 

(OATS); corrected for free 

space to common distance of 

antenna separation

0.30 

Type A

4900 MHz band

Complete system through 

tests, including VNA, fiber 

optic link, and antennas

Standard deviation from 

eight independent system 

through measurements at 

Outdoor Antenna Site 

(OATS) corrected for free 

space to common distance of 

antenna separation

0.55 

Type A

Uncertainty in path loss 

estimation per position on 

the postitioner

Standard deviation of the 

path loss estimation across 

the frequency band, i.e., 725-

800 MHz or 4900-5000 MHz

See ―freq‖ 

column in 

Table 4

Type A

Uncertainty in path loss 

estimation between 

positions on the postitioner

Standard deviation of 

eighteen estimated means per 

location

See 

―spacing‖ 

column in 

Table 4

Type B Drift in VNA 

measurements over time

Observed VNA drift over 3 

days. See [32].

0.1 

Type B Impacts of temperature on 

fiber optic cable

Observation in controlled 

experiment over three days. 0.1 
35

Table 4. Mean path loss and standard deviation for the eighteen measurements at each of the twelve 

locations. The combined column is the quadrature combination of the spacing, frequency band, system, 

fiber, and VNA uncertainties.

700 MHz – all values in dB

Location TX 1 σ TX 2 σ TX 3 σ mean path loss spacing freq combined mean path loss spacing freq combined mean path loss spacing freq

combined

1 17.25 1.41 5.85 6.02 36.84 0.89 5.61 5.68 30.30 0.81 5.79 5.86

2 5.15 0.78 3.41 3.51 17.06 1.18 3.35 3.57 13.39 1.77 4.22 4.59

3 12.88 1.21 5.61 5.75 21.55 1.09 5.27 5.39 15.60 1.45 4.26 4.51

4 16.14 1.40 5.17 5.36 24.63 1.16 4.88 5.03 19.72 1.44 5.04 5.25

5 21.01 1.03 5.73 5.83 27.65 1.13 4.97 5.11 25.15 1.31 4.77 4.96

6 32.22 0.89 5.72 5.80 38.57 0.79 6.27 6.33 36.42 1.10 6.13 6.23

7 34.24 0.91 5.72 5.81 40.09 1.02 5.69 5.79 37.85 1.05 5.32 5.43

8 34.88 0.81 5.65 5.71 40.50 0.74 5.79 5.85 38.17 0.92 5.52 5.60

9 36.54 0.70 5.37 5.42 42.27 1.71 6.18 6.43 39.68 1.02 6.04 6.14

10 43.48 0.95 6.01 6.09 49.71 1.10 5.48 5.59 51.61 0.87 5.97 6.04

11 24.60 1.17 5.73 5.86 -1.26 1.27 2.41 2.74 18.14 1.40 5.78 5.96

12 36.42 1.03 5.21 5.32 22.03 1.11 5.84 5.96 32.97 0.88 5.98 6.06

4900 MHz – all values in dB

Location TX 1 σ TX 2 σ TX 3 σ mean path loss spacing freq combined mean path loss spacing freq combined mean path loss spacing freq

combined

1 13.78 1.06 6.25 6.36 33.43 1.33 6.62 6.77 33.54 0.97 6.85 6.94

2 6.88 0.96 5.59 5.70 16.57 1.04 6.32 6.43 14.93 1.43 5.93 6.12

3 11.34 1.03 5.70 5.82 20.25 1.32 6.81 6.96 20.44 0.99 6.69 6.78

4 13.83 1.15 6.34 6.47 23.12 0.98 6.79 6.89 16.86 1.48 5.33 5.56

5 14.57 1.23 6.46 6.60 26.64 1.27 6.49 6.64 20.43 1.64 5.67 5.93

6 29.76 1.01 6.78 6.88 34.61 0.84 6.87 6.94 34.39 0.94 6.51 6.60

7 29.93 0.98 6.73 6.83 34.84 0.85 6.59 6.67 34.25 1.21 6.63 6.76

8 31.01 0.78 6.66 6.73 35.57 1.02 6.61 6.71 36.19 1.07 6.43 6.54

9 33.07 1.07 7.02 7.13 40.05 2.55 6.52 7.03 38.24 1.11 6.45 6.57

10 42.01 0.95 6.42 6.52 43.27 1.08 6.38 6.49 48.18 0.99 6.60 6.70

11 24.64 0.94 6.45 6.55 5.89 1.14 4.51 4.68 15.31 1.20 6.21 6.35

12 31.56 1.06 6.38 6.49 18.08 1.38 6.16 6.34 29.85 0.92 6.61 6.70
36

Figure 13. The mean path loss of the eighteen measurements collected at each of the twelve locations, 

with ± 2σ error bars, for each to the three transmitter locations. 4900 MHz to 5000 MHz.

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13

-10

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Rx Position

Mean Path Loss (dB)

Tx 1

Tx 2

Tx 3

Figure 12. The mean path loss of the eighteen measurements collected at each of the twelve locations, 

with ± 2σ error bars, for each to the three transmitter locations. 725 MHz to 800 MHz.

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13

-10

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Rx Position

Mean Path Loss (dB)

Tx 1

Tx 2

Tx 3
37

Table 5. Path loss model parameters: n=path loss exponent, X=standard deviation of Gaussian RV, 

Lc = corner loss.

n σX

(dB)

Lc

(dB)

700 MHz

Tx1 LOS 2.57 1.46 4.23

NLOS 4.57 2.13

Tx2 LOS 2.34 2.94 8.27

NLOS 5.76 2.23

Tx3 LOS 4.37 2.63 11.69

NLOS 3.42 3.44

All Tx LOS 2.27 3.06

NLOS 3.58 2.92

4900 MHz

Tx1 LOS 1.34 1.25 7.73

NLOS 4.04 2.47

Tx2 LOS 1.59 2.54 7.08

NLOS 5.18 3.23

Tx3 LOS 1.53 2.74 12.87

NLOS 3.47 3.02

All Tx LOS 1.64 2.65

NLOS 3.35 3.16

2 4 6 8 10 12 14

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

Pathloss vs. distance (Tx1)

10log10(d/d0) L(d) - L(d

0

)

LOS data

LOS fit

NLOS data

NLOS fit

10log10(d/dr)

L(d)-L(dr) (dB)

Figure 14. Excess propagation path loss (dB) vs. 10log10(distance/dr), 700 MHz 

band.
38

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

Rx Positions

RMS delay spread (ns)

Tx 1

Tx 2

Tx 3

Figure 15. 700 MHz band, mean RMS delay spread ± σ for each receive antenna location for the first 

transmit location.

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

Rx Positions

RMS delay spread (ns)

Tx 1

Tx 2

Tx 3

Figure 16. 4900 MHz band, mean RMS delay spread ± σ for each receive antenna location for second 

transmit location.
39

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800

-30

-25

-20

-15

-10

-5

0

Delay [ns]

PDP in dB

LOS Mean PDP

NLOS Mean PDP

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900

-35

-30

-25

-20

-15

-10

-5

0

Delay [ns]

PDP in dB

LOS Mean PDP

NLOS Mean PDP

(a) (b)

Figure 17. Average PDPs for all LOS and NLOS locations, (a) 700 MHz band; (b) 4900 MHz.
40

0 50 100 150 200 250 300

0

0.002

0.004

0.006

0.008

0.01

0.012

0.014

0.016

Histogram of RMS-DS for LOS and NLOS PDPs

RMS-DS [ns]

Probability of occurences

LOS 252 PDPs used

NLOS 273 PDPs used

0 50 100 150 200 250 300

0

0.002

0.004

0.006

0.008

0.01

0.012

0.014

0.016

0.018

Histogram of RMS-DS for LOS and NLOS PDPs

RMS-DS [ns]

Probability of occurences

LOS 252 PDPs used

NLOS 338 PDPs used

Figure 18. Histograms of RMS delay spread from power delay profiles in both LOS and 

NLOS locations, 700 MHz band.

Figure 19. Histograms of RMS delay spread from power delay profiles in both LOS and NLOS 

locations, 4900 MHz band.
41

Table 6. Summary instantaneous RMS-DS statistics (ns).

Condition 

(band)

Min Mean Median 90th Percentile Max Standard 

Deviation

LOS (700) 7 57 56 98 139 32

LOS (4900) 21 75 66 134 183 37

NLOS (700) 11 116 114 163 290 40

NLOS (4900) 57 135 131 172 291 37

Table 7. 90% delay window W90 and 25 dB delay interval I25 statistics (ns).

Condition (band) Min Mean Median Max

LOS W90 (700) 24 152 133 427

LOS W90 (4900) 33 205 157 538

LOS I25 (700) 42 384 435 746

LOS I25 (4900) 112 466 469 970

NLOS W90 (700) 36 377 370 976

NLOS W90 (4900) 157 442 437 984

NLOS I25 (700) 51 645 671 1000

NLOS I25 (4900) 355 791 825 1000

Table 8. Statistics for number of multipath components Lp, with a 25 dB threshold from PDP peak, plus 

modified uniform probability mass function fit parameter p0.

Lp Statistic 700 MHz 4900 MHz

LOS NLOS LOS NLOS

Minimum 4 3 3 3

Median 11.50 13 17 20.50

Mean 10.49 11.47 16 17.91

90th Percentile 14 14 21 21

Maximum 14 14 21 21

Standard Deviation 3.34 3.10 4.70 4.74

p0 0.3294 0.4428 0.2619 0.5

Table 9. PDP exponential fit parameters of equations (11), (12).

Parameter 700 MHz 4900 MHz

c0 1.09 0.98

c1 0.07 0.076

b10 0.39 0.27

b11 0.017 0.003

b20 6.56 0.56

b21 0.018 0.003

2 (ns) 73 70

b30 129 26.7

b31 0.017 0.013

3 (ns) 215 218
42

Table 10. multipath component delay distribution probability density function parameters for equations 

(13), (14).

Band LOS 

Parameter 

v

NLOS 

Parameters 

(a,b)

700 MHz 318.2 (452.7, 1.57)

4900 MHz 340.6 (472.8, 1.6)
43

730 740 750 760 770 780 790 800

-80

-70

-60

-50

-40

-30

-20

Frequency (MHz)

|H(f)|2 (dB)

Mean |H(f)|2

Mean |N(f)|2

Std Dev |H(f)|2

TX1 to RX1

|H(f)|2 (mean) = -42 dB

0 200 400 600 800 1000

-150

-140

-130

-120

-110

-100

-90

Delay (ns)

PDP (dB)

TX1 to RX1 Mean (

rms

) = 52 ns

Std Dev (

rms

) = 15 ns

Noise Threshold = -119 dB

730 740 750 760 770 780 790 800

-80

-70

-60

-50

-40

-30

-20

Frequency (MHz)

|H(f)|2 (dB)Mean |H(f)|2

Mean |N(f)|2

Std Dev |H(f)|2

TX1 to RX2

|H(f)|2 (mean) = -31 dB

0 200 400 600 800 1000

-140

-130

-120

-110

-100

-90

-80

-70

Delay (ns)

PDP (dB)

TX1 to RX2 Mean (

rms

) = 21 ns

Std Dev (

rms

) = 5 ns

Noise Threshold = -119 dB

730 740 750 760 770 780 790 800

-80

-70

-60

-50

-40

-30

-20

Frequency (MHz)

|H(f)|2 (dB)

Mean |H(f)|2

Mean |N(f)|2

Std Dev |H(f)|2

TX1 to RX3

|H(f)|2 (mean) = -38 dB

0 200 400 600 800 1000

-140

-130

-120

-110

-100

-90

-80

Delay (ns)

PDP (dB)

TX1 to RX3 Mean (

rms

) = 63 ns

Std Dev (

rms

) = 29 ns

Noise Threshold = -119 dB

730 740 750 760 770 780 790 800

-80

-70

-60

-50

-40

-30

-20

Frequency (MHz)

|H(f)|2 (dB)

Mean |H(f)|2

Mean |N(f)|2

Std Dev |H(f)|2

TX1 to RX4

|H(f)|2 (mean) = -41 dB

0 200 400 600 800 1000

-140

-130

-120

-110

-100

-90

-80

Delay (ns)

PDP (dB)

TX1 to RX4 Mean (

rms

) = 55 ns

Std Dev (

rms

) = 22 ns

Noise Threshold = -119 dB

Appendix II: 700 MHz Experimental Data

Figure 20. Magnitude squared of the channel performance and PDP for Tx1 to Rx1 through Rx4 

pairings in the 700 MHz band.
44

730 740 750 760 770 780 790 800

-80

-70

-60

-50

-40

-30

-20

Frequency (MHz)

|H(f)|2 (dB)

Mean |H(f)|2

Mean |N(f)|2

Std Dev |H(f)|2

TX1 to RX5

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

0 200 400 600 800 1000

-150

-140

-130

-120

-110

-100

-90

Delay (ns)

PDP (dB)

TX1 to RX5 Mean (

rms

) = 107 ns

Std Dev (

rms

) = 14 ns

Noise Threshold = -119 dB

730 740 750 760 770 780 790 800

-80

-70

-60

-50

-40

-30

-20

Frequency (MHz)

|H(f)|2 (dB)

Mean |H(f)|2

Mean |N(f)|2

Std Dev |H(f)|2

TX1 to RX6

|H(f)|2 (mean) = -58 dB

0 200 400 600 800 1000

-150

-140

-130

-120

-110

-100

Delay (ns)

PDP (dB)

TX1 to RX6 Mean (

rms

) = 151 ns

Std Dev (

rms

) = 9 ns

Noise Threshold = -119 dB

730 740 750 760 770 780 790 800

-80

-70

-60

-50

-40

-30

-20

Frequency (MHz)

|H(f)|2 (dB)

Mean |H(f)|2

Mean |N(f)|2

Std Dev |H(f)|2

TX1 to RX7

|H(f)|2 (mean) = -60 dB

0 200 400 600 800 1000

-140

-130

-120

-110

Delay (ns)

PDP (dB)

TX1 to RX7 Mean (

rms

) = 146 ns

Std Dev (

rms

) = 19 ns

Noise Threshold = -119 dB

730 740 750 760 770 780 790 800

-80

-70

-60

-50

-40

-30

-20

Frequency (MHz)

|H(f)|2 (dB)

Mean |H(f)|2

Mean |N(f)|2

Std Dev |H(f)|2

TX1 to RX8

|H(f)|2 (mean) = -60 dB

0 200 400 600 800 1000

-145

-140

-135

-130

-125

-120

-115

-110

-105

Delay (ns)

PDP (dB)

TX1 to RX8 Mean (

rms

) = 124 ns

Std Dev (

rms

) = 20 ns

Noise Threshold = -119 dB

Figure 21. Magnitude squared of the channel performance and PDP for Tx1 to Rx5 

through Rx8 pairings in the 700 MHz band.
45

730 740 750 760 770 780 790 800

-80

-70

-60

-50

-40

-30

-20

Frequency (MHz)

|H(f)|2 (dB)

Mean |H(f)|2

Mean |N(f)|2

Std Dev |H(f)|2

TX1 to RX9

|H(f)|2 (mean) = -62 dB

0 200 400 600 800 1000

-150

-140

-130

-120

-110

Delay (ns)

PDP (dB)

TX1 to RX9 Mean (

rms

) = 135 ns

Std Dev (

rms

) = 16 ns

Noise Threshold = -119 dB

730 740 750 760 770 780 790 800

-80

-70

-60

-50

-40

-30

-20

Frequency (MHz)

|H(f)|2 (dB)

Mean |H(f)|2

Mean |N(f)|2

Std Dev |H(f)|2

TX1 to RX10

|H(f)|2 (mean) = -69 dB

0 200 400 600 800 1000

-160

-150

-140

-130

-120

Delay (ns)

PDP (dB)

TX1 to RX10 Mean (

rms

) = 23 ns

Std Dev (

rms

) = 69 ns

Noise Threshold = -119 dB

730 740 750 760 770 780 790 800

-80

-70

-60

-50

-40

-30

-20

Frequency (MHz)

|H(f)|2 (dB)

Mean |H(f)|2

Mean |N(f)|2

Std Dev |H(f)|2

TX1 to RX11

|H(f)|2 (mean) = -50 dB

0 200 400 600 800 1000

-150

-140

-130

-120

-110

-100

-90

Delay (ns)

PDP (dB)

TX1 to RX11 Mean (

rms

) = 97 ns

Std Dev (

rms

) = 17 ns

Noise Threshold = -119 dB

730 740 750 760 770 780 790 800

-80

-70

-60

-50

-40

-30

-20

Frequency (MHz)

|H(f)|2 (dB)

Mean |H(f)|2

Mean |N(f)|2

Std Dev |H(f)|2

TX1 to RX12

|H(f)|2 (mean) = -62 dB

0 200 400 600 800 1000

-150

-140

-130

-120

-110

Delay (ns)

PDP (dB)

TX1 to RX12 Mean (

rms

) = 72 ns

Std Dev (

rms

) = 14 ns

Noise Threshold = -119 dB

Figure 22. Magnitude squared of the channel performance and PDP for Tx1 to Rx9 

through Rx12 pairings in the 700 MHz band.
46

730 740 750 760 770 780 790 800

-80

-70

-60

-50

-40

-30

-20

Frequency (MHz)

|H(f)|2 (dB)

Mean |H(f)|2

Mean |N(f)|2

Std Dev |H(f)|2

TX2 to RX1

|H(f)|2 (mean) = -62 dB

0 200 400 600 800 1000

-150

-140

-130

-120

-110

Delay (ns)

PDP (dB)

TX2 to RX1 Mean (

rms

) = 114 ns

Std Dev (

rms

) = 52 ns

Noise Threshold = -119 dB

730 740 750 760 770 780 790 800

-80

-70

-60

-50

-40

-30

-20

Frequency (MHz)

|H(f)|2 (dB)

Mean |H(f)|2

Mean |N(f)|2

Std Dev |H(f)|2

TX2 to RX2

|H(f)|2 (mean) = -42 dB

0 200 400 600 800 1000

-150

-140

-130

-120

-110

-100

-90

-80

Delay (ns)

PDP (dB)

TX2 to RX2 Mean (

rms

) = 32 ns

Std Dev (

rms

) = 12 ns

Noise Threshold = -119 dB

730 740 750 760 770 780 790 800

-80

-70

-60

-50

-40

-30

-20

Frequency (MHz)

|H(f)|2 (dB)

Mean |H(f)|2

Mean |N(f)|2

Std Dev |H(f)|2

TX2 to RX3

|H(f)|2 (mean) = -47 dB

0 200 400 600 800 1000

-150

-140

-130

-120

-110

-100

-90

Delay (ns)

PDP (dB)

TX2 to RX3 Mean (

rms

) = 60 ns

Std Dev (

rms

) = 15 ns

Noise Threshold = -119 dB

730 740 750 760 770 780 790 800

-80

-70

-60

-50

-40

-30

-20

Frequency (MHz)

|H(f)|2 (dB)

Mean |H(f)|2

Mean |N(f)|2

Std Dev |H(f)|2

TX2 to RX4

|H(f)|2 (mean) = -50 dB

0 200 400 600 800 1000

-140

-130

-120

-110

-100

-90

Delay (ns)

PDP (dB)

TX2 to RX4 Mean (

rms

) = 74 ns

Std Dev (

rms

) = 11 ns

Noise Threshold = -119 dB

Figure 23. Magnitude squared of the channel performance and PDP for Tx2 to Rx1 

through Rx4 pairings in the 700 MHz band.
47

730 740 750 760 770 780 790 800

-80

-70

-60

-50

-40

-30

-20

Frequency (MHz)

|H(f)|2 (dB)

Mean |H(f)|2

Mean |N(f)|2

Std Dev |H(f)|2

TX2 to RX5

|H(f)|2 (mean) = -53 dB

0 200 400 600 800 1000

-150

-140

-130

-120

-110

-100

-90

Delay (ns)

PDP (dB)

TX2 to RX5 Mean (

rms

) = 82 ns

Std Dev (

rms

) = 19 ns

Noise Threshold = -119 dB

730 740 750 760 770 780 790 800

-80

-70

-60

-50

-40

-30

-20

Frequency (MHz)

|H(f)|2 (dB)

Mean |H(f)|2

Mean |N(f)|2

Std Dev |H(f)|2

TX2 to RX6

|H(f)|2 (mean) = -64 dB

0 200 400 600 800 1000

-150

-145

-140

-135

-130

-125

-120

-115

-110

Delay (ns)

PDP (dB)

TX2 to RX6 Mean (

rms

) = 120 ns

Std Dev (

rms

) = 36 ns

Noise Threshold = -119 dB

730 740 750 760 770 780 790 800

-80

-70

-60

-50

-40

-30

-20

Frequency (MHz)

|H(f)|2 (dB)

Mean |H(f)|2

Mean |N(f)|2

Std Dev |H(f)|2

TX2 to RX7

|H(f)|2 (mean) = -65 dB

0 200 400 600 800 1000

-150

-140

-130

-120

-110

Delay (ns)

PDP (dB)

TX2 to RX7 Mean (

rms

) = 90 ns

Std Dev (

rms

) = 46 ns

Noise Threshold = -119 dB

730 740 750 760 770 780 790 800

-80

-70

-60

-50

-40

-30

-20

Frequency (MHz)

|H(f)|2 (dB)

Mean |H(f)|2

Mean |N(f)|2

Std Dev |H(f)|2

TX2 to RX8

|H(f)|2 (mean) = -66 dB

0 200 400 600 800 1000

-150

-140

-130

-120

-110

Delay (ns)

PDP (dB)

TX2 to RX8 Mean (

rms

) = 68 ns

Std Dev (

rms

) = 45 ns

Noise Threshold = -119 dB

Figure 24. Magnitude squared of the channel performance and PDP for Tx2 to Rx5 

through Rx8 pairings in the 700 MHz band.
48

730 740 750 760 770 780 790 800

-80

-70

-60

-50

-40

-30

-20

Frequency (MHz)

|H(f)|2 (dB)

Mean |H(f)|2

Mean |N(f)|2

Std Dev |H(f)|2

TX2 to RX9

|H(f)|2 (mean) = -67 dB

0 200 400 600 800 1000

-135

-130

-125

-120

-115

-110

Delay (ns)

PDP (dB)

TX2 to RX9 Mean (

rms

) = 53 ns

Std Dev (

rms

) = 50 ns

Noise Threshold = -119 dB

730 740 750 760 770 780 790 800

-80

-70

-60

-50

-40

-30

-20

Frequency (MHz)

|H(f)|2 (dB)

Mean |H(f)|2

Mean |N(f)|2

Std Dev |H(f)|2

TX2 to RX10

|H(f)|2 (mean) = -75 dB

0 200 400 600 800 1000

-155

-150

-145

-140

-135

-130

-125

-120

-115

Delay (ns)

PDP (dB)

TX2 to RX10 Mean (

rms

) = 1 ns

Std Dev (

rms

) = 2 ns

Noise Threshold = -119 dB

730 740 750 760 770 780 790 800

-80

-70

-60

-50

-40

-30

-20

Frequency (MHz)

|H(f)|2 (dB)

Mean |H(f)|2

Mean |N(f)|2

Std Dev |H(f)|2

TX2 to RX11

|H(f)|2 (mean) = -24 dB

0 200 400 600 800 1000

-130

-120

-110

-100

-90

-80

-70

-60

Delay (ns)

PDP (dB)

TX2 to RX11 Mean (

rms

) = 8 ns

Std Dev (

rms

) = 0 ns

Noise Threshold = -119 dB

730 740 750 760 770 780 790 800

-80

-70

-60

-50

-40

-30

-20

Frequency (MHz)

|H(f)|2 (dB)

Mean |H(f)|2

Mean |N(f)|2

Std Dev |H(f)|2

TX2 to RX12

|H(f)|2 (mean) = -47 dB

0 200 400 600 800 1000

-140

-130

-120

-110

-100

-90

Delay (ns)

PDP (dB)

TX2 to RX12 Mean (

rms

) = 74 ns

Std Dev (

rms

) = 6 ns

Noise Threshold = -119 dB

Figure 25. Magnitude squared of the channel performance and PDP for Tx2 to Rx9 

through Rx12 pairings in the 700 MHz band.
49

730 740 750 760 770 780 790 800

-80

-70

-60

-50

-40

-30

-20

Frequency (MHz)

|H(f)|2 (dB)

Mean |H(f)|2

Mean |N(f)|2

Std Dev |H(f)|2

TX3 to RX1

|H(f)|2 (mean) = -56 dB

0 200 400 600 800 1000

-150

-140

-130

-120

-110

-100

Delay (ns)

PDP (dB)

TX3 to RX1 Mean (

rms

) = 135 ns

Std Dev (

rms

) = 39 ns

Noise Threshold = -119 dB

730 740 750 760 770 780 790 800

-80

-70

-60

-50

-40

-30

-20

Frequency (MHz)

|H(f)|2 (dB)

Mean |H(f)|2

Mean |N(f)|2

Std Dev |H(f)|2

TX3 to RX2

|H(f)|2 (mean) = -38 dB

0 200 400 600 800 1000

-140

-130

-120

-110

-100

-90

-80

Delay (ns)

PDP (dB)

TX3 to RX2 Mean (

rms

) = 39 ns

Std Dev (

rms

) = 18 ns

Noise Threshold = -119 dB

730 740 750 760 770 780 790 800

-80

-70

-60

-50

-40

-30

-20

Frequency (MHz)

|H(f)|2 (dB)

Mean |H(f)|2

Mean |N(f)|2

Std Dev |H(f)|2

TX3 to RX3

|H(f)|2 (mean) = -41 dB

0 200 400 600 800 1000

-140

-130

-120

-110

-100

-90

-80

Delay (ns)

PDP (dB)

TX3 to RX3 Mean (

rms

) = 39 ns

Std Dev (

rms

) = 18 ns

Noise Threshold = -119 dB

730 740 750 760 770 780 790 800

-80

-70

-60

-50

-40

-30

-20

Frequency (MHz)

|H(f)|2 (dB)

Mean |H(f)|2

Mean |N(f)|2

Std Dev |H(f)|2

TX3 to RX4

|H(f)|2 (mean) = -45 dB

0 200 400 600 800 1000

-140

-130

-120

-110

-100

-90

Delay (ns)

PDP (dB)

TX3 to RX4 Mean (

rms

) = 52 ns

Std Dev (

rms

) = 19 ns

Noise Threshold = -119 dB

Figure 26. Magnitude squared of the channel performance and PDP for Tx3 to Rx1 

through Rx4 pairings in the 700 MHz band.
50

730 740 750 760 770 780 790 800

-80

-70

-60

-50

-40

-30

-20

Frequency (MHz)

|H(f)|2 (dB)

Mean |H(f)|2

Mean |N(f)|2

Std Dev |H(f)|2

TX3 to RX5

|H(f)|2 (mean) = -50 dB

0 200 400 600 800 1000

-150

-140

-130

-120

-110

-100

-90

Delay (ns)

PDP (dB)

TX3 to RX5 Mean (

rms

) = 95 ns

Std Dev (

rms

) = 22 ns

Noise Threshold = -119 dB

730 740 750 760 770 780 790 800

-80

-70

-60

-50

-40

-30

-20

Frequency (MHz)

|H(f)|2 (dB)

Mean |H(f)|2

Mean |N(f)|2

Std Dev |H(f)|2

TX3 to RX6

|H(f)|2 (mean) = -62 dB

0 200 400 600 800 1000

-145

-140

-135

-130

-125

-120

-115

-110

Delay (ns)

PDP (dB)

TX3 to RX6 Mean (

rms

) = 138 ns

Std Dev (

rms

) = 25 ns

Noise Threshold = -119 dB

730 740 750 760 770 780 790 800

-80

-70

-60

-50

-40

-30

-20

Frequency (MHz)

|H(f)|2 (dB)

Mean |H(f)|2

Mean |N(f)|2

Std Dev |H(f)|2

TX3 to RX7

|H(f)|2 (mean) = -63 dB

0 200 400 600 800 1000

-150

-140

-130

-120

-110

Delay (ns)

PDP (dB)

TX3 to RX7 Mean (

rms

) = 103 ns

Std Dev (

rms

) = 27 ns

Noise Threshold = -119 dB

730 740 750 760 770 780 790 800

-80

-70

-60

-50

-40

-30

-20

Frequency (MHz)

|H(f)|2 (dB)

Mean |H(f)|2

Mean |N(f)|2

Std Dev |H(f)|2

TX3 to RX8

|H(f)|2 (mean) = -63 dB

0 200 400 600 800 1000

-145

-140

-135

-130

-125

-120

-115

-110

-105

Delay (ns)

PDP (dB)

TX3 to RX8 Mean (

rms

) = 102 ns

Std Dev (

rms

) = 23 ns

Noise Threshold = -119 dB

Figure 27. Magnitude squared of the channel performance and PDP for Tx3 to Rx5 

through Rx8 pairings in the 700 MHz band.
51

730 740 750 760 770 780 790 800

-80

-70

-60

-50

-40

-30

-20

Frequency (MHz)

|H(f)|2 (dB)

Mean |H(f)|2

Mean |N(f)|2

Std Dev |H(f)|2

TX3 to RX9

|H(f)|2 (mean) = -65 dB

0 200 400 600 800 1000

-150

-140

-130

-120

-110

Delay (ns)

PDP (dB)

TX3 to RX9 Mean (

rms

) = 100 ns

Std Dev (

rms

) = 37 ns

Noise Threshold = -119 dB

730 740 750 760 770 780 790 800

-80

-70

-60

-50

-40

-30

-20

Frequency (MHz)

|H(f)|2 (dB)

Mean |H(f)|2

Mean |N(f)|2

Std Dev |H(f)|2

TX3 to RX11

|H(f)|2 (mean) = -43 dB

0 200 400 600 800 1000

-150

-140

-130

-120

-110

-100

-90

Delay (ns)

PDP (dB)

TX3 to RX11 Mean (

rms

) = 69 ns

Std Dev (

rms

) = 20 ns

Noise Threshold = -119 dB

730 740 750 760 770 780 790 800

-80

-70

-60

-50

-40

-30

-20

Frequency (MHz)

|H(f)|2 (dB)

Mean |H(f)|2

Mean |N(f)|2

Std Dev |H(f)|2

TX3 to RX12

|H(f)|2 (mean) = -58 dB

0 200 400 600 800 1000

-150

-140

-130

-120

-110

Delay (ns)

PDP (dB)

TX3 to RX12 Mean (

rms

) = 177 ns

Std Dev (

rms

) = 68 ns

Noise Threshold = -119 dB

Figure 28. Magnitude squared of the channel performance and PDP for Tx3 to Rx9, Rx11, 

and Rx12 pairings in the 700 MHz band.
52

0 200 400 600 800 1000

-170

-160

-150

-140

-130

-120

-110

-100

Delay (ns)

PDP (dB)

TX1 to RX1 Mean (

rms

) = 51 ns

Std Dev (

rms

) = 12 ns

Noise Threshold = -145 dB

4900 4920 4940 4960 4980 5000

-90

-80

-70

-60

-50

-40

-30

Frequency (MHz)

|H(f)|2 (dB)

Mean |H(f)|2

Mean |N(f)|2

Std Dev |H(f)|2

TX1 to RX1

|H(f)|2 (mean) = -38 dB

4900 4920 4940 4960 4980 5000

-90

-80

-70

-60

-50

-40

-30

Frequency (MHz)

|H(f)|2 (dB)

Mean |H(f)|2

Mean |N(f)|2

Std Dev |H(f)|2

TX1 to RX2

|H(f)|2 (mean) = -31 dB

0 200 400 600 800 1000

-170

-160

-150

-140

-130

-120

-110

-100

-90

Delay (ns)

PDP (dB)

TX1 to RX2 Mean (

rms

) = 40 ns

Std Dev (

rms

) = 8 ns

Noise Threshold = -145 dB

4900 4920 4940 4960 4980 5000

-90

-80

-70

-60

-50

-40

-30

Frequency (MHz)

|H(f)|2 (dB)

Mean |H(f)|2

Mean |N(f)|2

Std Dev |H(f)|2

TX1 to RX3

|H(f)|2 (mean) = -36 dB

0 200 400 600 800 1000

-160

-140

-120

-100

Delay (ns)

PDP (dB)

TX1 to RX3 Mean (

rms

) = 60 ns

Std Dev (

rms

) = 13 ns

Noise Threshold = -145 dB

4900 4920 4940 4960 4980 5000

-90

-80

-70

-60

-50

-40

-30

Frequency (MHz)

|H(f)|2 (dB)

Mean |H(f)|2

Mean |N(f)|2

Std Dev |H(f)|2

TX1 to RX4

|H(f)|2 (mean) = -38 dB

0 200 400 600 800 1000

-180

-170

-160

-150

-140

-130

-120

-110

-100

Delay (ns)

PDP (dB)

TX1 to RX4 Mean (

rms

) = 62 ns

Std Dev (

rms

) = 19 ns

Noise Threshold = -145 dB

Appendix III: 4900 MHz Experimental Data

Figure 29. Magnitude squared of the channel performance and PDP for Tx1 to Rx1 

through Rx4 pairings in the 4900 MHz band.
53

4900 4920 4940 4960 4980 5000

-90

-80

-70

-60

-50

-40

-30

Frequency (MHz)

|H(f)|2 (dB)

Mean |H(f)|2

Mean |N(f)|2

Std Dev |H(f)|2

TX1 to RX5

|H(f)|2 (mean) = -39 dB

0 200 400 600 800 1000

-170

-160

-150

-140

-130

-120

-110

-100

Delay (ns)

PDP (dB)

TX1 to RX5 Mean (

rms

) = 55 ns

Std Dev (

rms

) = 18 ns

Noise Threshold = -145 dB

4900 4920 4940 4960 4980 5000

-90

-80

-70

-60

-50

-40

-30

Frequency (MHz)

|H(f)|2 (dB)

Mean |H(f)|2

Mean |N(f)|2

Std Dev |H(f)|2

TX1 to RX6

|H(f)|2 (mean) = -54 dB

0 200 400 600 800 1000

-180

-170

-160

-150

-140

-130

-120

Delay (ns)

PDP (dB)

TX1 to RX6 Mean (

rms

) = 132 ns

Std Dev (

rms

) = 19 ns

Noise Threshold = -145 dB

4900 4920 4940 4960 4980 5000

-90

-80

-70

-60

-50

-40

-30

Frequency (MHz)

|H(f)|2 (dB)

Mean |H(f)|2

Mean |N(f)|2

Std Dev |H(f)|2

TX1 to RX7

|H(f)|2 (mean) = -54 dB

0 200 400 600 800 1000

-170

-160

-150

-140

-130

-120

Delay (ns)

PDP (dB)

TX1 to RX7 Mean (

rms

) = 139 ns

Std Dev (

rms

) = 20 ns

Noise Threshold = -145 dB

4900 4920 4940 4960 4980 5000

-90

-80

-70

-60

-50

-40

-30

Frequency (MHz)

|H(f)|2 (dB)

Mean |H(f)|2

Mean |N(f)|2

Std Dev |H(f)|2

TX1 to RX8

|H(f)|2 (mean) = -55 dB

0 200 400 600 800 1000

-170

-160

-150

-140

-130

-120

Delay (ns)

PDP (dB)

TX1 to RX8 Mean (

rms

) = 128 ns

Std Dev (

rms

) = 16 ns

Noise Threshold = -145 dB

Figure 30. Magnitude squared of the channel performance and PDP for Tx1 to Rx5 

through Rx8 pairings in the 4900 MHz band.
54

4900 4920 4940 4960 4980 5000

-90

-80

-70

-60

-50

-40

-30

Frequency (MHz)

|H(f)|2 (dB)

Mean |H(f)|2

Mean |N(f)|2

Std Dev |H(f)|2

TX1 to RX9

|H(f)|2 (mean) = -57 dB

0 200 400 600 800 1000

-180

-170

-160

-150

-140

-130

-120

Delay (ns)

PDP (dB)

TX1 to RX9 Mean (

rms

) = 128 ns

Std Dev (

rms

) = 23 ns

Noise Threshold = -145 dB

4900 4920 4940 4960 4980 5000

-90

-80

-70

-60

-50

-40

-30

Frequency (MHz)

|H(f)|2 (dB)

Mean |H(f)|2

Mean |N(f)|2

Std Dev |H(f)|2

TX1 to RX10

|H(f)|2 (mean) = -66 dB

0 200 400 600 800 1000

-180

-170

-160

-150

-140

-130

Delay (ns)

PDP (dB)

TX1 to RX10 Mean (

rms

) = 241 ns

Std Dev (

rms

) = 28 ns

Noise Threshold = -145 dB

4900 4920 4940 4960 4980 5000

-90

-80

-70

-60

-50

-40

-30

Frequency (MHz)

|H(f)|2 (dB)

Mean |H(f)|2

Mean |N(f)|2

Std Dev |H(f)|2

TX1 to RX11

|H(f)|2 (mean) = -49 dB

0 200 400 600 800 1000

-180

-170

-160

-150

-140

-130

-120

-110

Delay (ns)

PDP (dB)

TX1 to RX11 Mean (

rms

) = 118 ns

Std Dev (

rms

) = 13 ns

Noise Threshold = -145 dB

4900 4920 4940 4960 4980 5000

-90

-80

-70

-60

-50

-40

-30

Frequency (MHz)

|H(f)|2 (dB)

Mean |H(f)|2

Mean |N(f)|2

Std Dev |H(f)|2

TX1 to RX12

|H(f)|2 (mean) = -56 dB

0 200 400 600 800 1000

-180

-170

-160

-150

-140

-130

-120

Delay (ns)

PDP (dB)

TX1 to RX12 Mean (

rms

) = 90 ns

Std Dev (

rms

) = 18 ns

Noise Threshold = -145 dB

Figure 31. Magnitude squared of the channel performance and PDP for Tx1 to Rx9 

through Rx12 pairings in the 4900 MHz band.
55

4900 4920 4940 4960 4980 5000

-90

-80

-70

-60

-50

-40

-30

Frequency (MHz)

|H(f)|2 (dB)

Mean |H(f)|2

Mean |N(f)|2

Std Dev |H(f)|2

TX2 to RX1

|H(f)|2 (mean) = -58 dB

0 200 400 600 800 1000

-180

-170

-160

-150

-140

-130

-120

Delay (ns)

PDP (dB)

TX2 to RX1 Mean (

rms

) = 95 ns

Std Dev (

rms

) = 22 ns

Noise Threshold = -145 dB

4900 4920 4940 4960 4980 5000

-90

-80

-70

-60

-50

-40

-30

Frequency (MHz)

|H(f)|2 (dB)

Mean |H(f)|2

Mean |N(f)|2

Std Dev |H(f)|2

TX2 to RX2

|H(f)|2 (mean) = -41 dB

0 200 400 600 800 1000

-180

-170

-160

-150

-140

-130

-120

-110

-100

Delay (ns)

PDP (dB)

TX2 to RX2 Mean (

rms

) = 56 ns

Std Dev (

rms

) = 11 ns

Noise Threshold = -145 dB

4900 4920 4940 4960 4980 5000

-90

-80

-70

-60

-50

-40

-30

Frequency (MHz)

|H(f)|2 (dB)

Mean |H(f)|2

Mean |N(f)|2

Std Dev |H(f)|2

TX2 to RX3

|H(f)|2 (mean) = -44 dB

0 200 400 600 800 1000

-180

-170

-160

-150

-140

-130

-120

-110

-100

Delay (ns)

PDP (dB)

TX2 to RX3 Mean (

rms

) = 89 ns

Std Dev (

rms

) = 21 ns

Noise Threshold = -145 dB

4900 4920 4940 4960 4980 5000

-90

-80

-70

-60

-50

-40

-30

Frequency (MHz)

|H(f)|2 (dB)

Mean |H(f)|2

Mean |N(f)|2

Std Dev |H(f)|2

TX2 to RX4

|H(f)|2 (mean) = -47 dB

0 200 400 600 800 1000

-170

-160

-150

-140

-130

-120

-110

Delay (ns)

PDP (dB)

TX2 to RX4 Mean (

rms

) = 118 ns

Std Dev (

rms

) = 17 ns

Noise Threshold = -145 dB

Figure 32. Magnitude squared of the channel performance and PDP for Tx2 to Rx1 

through Rx4 pairings in the 4900 MHz band.
56

4900 4920 4940 4960 4980 5000

-90

-80

-70

-60

-50

-40

-30

Frequency (MHz)

|H(f)|2 (dB)

Mean |H(f)|2

Mean |N(f)|2

Std Dev |H(f)|2

TX2 to RX5

|H(f)|2 (mean) = -51 dB

0 200 400 600 800 1000

-180

-170

-160

-150

-140

-130

-120

-110

Delay (ns)

PDP (dB)

TX2 to RX5 Mean (

rms

) = 149 ns

Std Dev (

rms

) = 31 ns

Noise Threshold = -145 dB

4900 4920 4940 4960 4980 5000

-90

-80

-70

-60

-50

-40

-30

Frequency (MHz)

|H(f)|2 (dB)

Mean |H(f)|2

Mean |N(f)|2

Std Dev |H(f)|2

TX2 to RX6

|H(f)|2 (mean) = -59 dB

0 200 400 600 800 1000

-180

-170

-160

-150

-140

-130

-120

Delay (ns)

PDP (dB)

TX2 to RX6 Mean (

rms

) = 134 ns

Std Dev (

rms

) = 13 ns

Noise Threshold = -145 dB

4900 4920 4940 4960 4980 5000

-90

-80

-70

-60

-50

-40

-30

Frequency (MHz)

|H(f)|2 (dB)

Mean |H(f)|2

Mean |N(f)|2

Std Dev |H(f)|2

TX2 to RX7

|H(f)|2 (mean) = -59 dB

0 200 400 600 800 1000

-180

-170

-160

-150

-140

-130

-120

Delay (ns)

PDP (dB)

TX2 to RX7 Mean (

rms

) = 133 ns

Std Dev (

rms

) = 18 ns

Noise Threshold = -145 dB

4900 4920 4940 4960 4980 5000

-90

-80

-70

-60

-50

-40

-30

Frequency (MHz)

|H(f)|2 (dB)

Mean |H(f)|2

Mean |N(f)|2

Std Dev |H(f)|2

TX2 to RX8

|H(f)|2 (mean) = -60 dB

0 200 400 600 800 1000

-180

-170

-160

-150

-140

-130

Delay (ns)

PDP (dB)

TX2 to RX8 Mean (

rms

) = 138 ns

Std Dev (

rms

) = 13 ns

Noise Threshold = -145 dB

Figure 33. Magnitude squared of the channel performance and PDP for Tx2 to Rx5 

through Rx8 pairings in the 4900 MHz band.
57

4900 4920 4940 4960 4980 5000

-90

-80

-70

-60

-50

-40

-30

Frequency (MHz)

|H(f)|2 (dB)

Mean |H(f)|2

Mean |N(f)|2

Std Dev |H(f)|2

TX2 to RX9

|H(f)|2 (mean) = -63 dB

0 200 400 600 800 1000

-140

-135

-130

-125

Delay (ns)

PDP (dB)

TX2 to RX9 Mean (

rms

) = 123 ns

Std Dev (

rms

) = 36 ns

Noise Threshold = -145 dB

4900 4920 4940 4960 4980 5000

-90

-80

-70

-60

-50

-40

-30

Frequency (MHz)

|H(f)|2 (dB)

Mean |H(f)|2

Mean |N(f)|2

Std Dev |H(f)|2

TX2 to RX10

|H(f)|2 (mean) = -68 dB

0 200 400 600 800 1000

-190

-180

-170

-160

-150

-140

-130

Delay (ns)

PDP (dB)

TX2 to RX10 Mean (

rms

) = 122 ns

Std Dev (

rms

) = 22 ns

Noise Threshold = -145 dB

4900 4920 4940 4960 4980 5000

-90

-80

-70

-60

-50

-40

-30

Frequency (MHz)

|H(f)|2 (dB)

Mean |H(f)|2

Mean |N(f)|2

Std Dev |H(f)|2

TX2 to RX11

|H(f)|2 (mean) = -30 dB

0 200 400 600 800 1000

-160

-140

-120

-100

Delay (ns)

PDP (dB)

TX2 to RX11 Mean (

rms

) = 37 ns

Std Dev (

rms

) = 11 ns

Noise Threshold = -145 dB

4900 4920 4940 4960 4980 5000

-90

-80

-70

-60

-50

-40

-30

Frequency (MHz)

|H(f)|2 (dB)

Mean |H(f)|2

Mean |N(f)|2

Std Dev |H(f)|2

TX2 to RX12

|H(f)|2 (mean) = -42 dB

0 200 400 600 800 1000

-170

-160

-150

-140

-130

-120

-110

-100

Delay (ns)

PDP (dB)

TX2 to RX12 Mean (

rms

) = 76 ns

Std Dev (

rms

) = 12 ns

Noise Threshold = -145 dB

Figure 34. Magnitude squared of the channel performance and PDP for Tx2 to Rx9 

through Rx12 pairings in the 4900 MHz band.
58

4900 4920 4940 4960 4980 5000

-90

-80

-70

-60

-50

-40

-30

Frequency (MHz)

|H(f)|2 (dB)

Mean |H(f)|2

Mean |N(f)|2

Std Dev |H(f)|2

TX3 to RX1

|H(f)|2 (mean) = -58 dB

0 200 400 600 800 1000

-180

-170

-160

-150

-140

-130

-120

Delay (ns)

PDP (dB)

TX3 to RX1 Mean (

rms

) = 152 ns

Std Dev (

rms

) = 40 ns

Noise Threshold = -145 dB

4900 4920 4940 4960 4980 5000

-90

-80

-70

-60

-50

-40

-30

Frequency (MHz)

|H(f)|2 (dB)

Mean |H(f)|2

Mean |N(f)|2

Std Dev |H(f)|2

TX3 to RX2

|H(f)|2 (mean) = -39 dB

0 200 400 600 800 1000

-170

-160

-150

-140

-130

-120

-110

-100

Delay (ns)

PDP (dB)

TX3 to RX2 Mean (

rms

) = 71 ns

Std Dev (

rms

) = 30 ns

Noise Threshold = -145 dB

4900 4920 4940 4960 4980 5000

-90

-80

-70

-60

-50

-40

-30

Frequency (MHz)

|H(f)|2 (dB)

Mean |H(f)|2

Mean |N(f)|2

Std Dev |H(f)|2

TX3 to RX3

|H(f)|2 (mean) = -45 dB

0 200 400 600 800 1000

-180

-170

-160

-150

-140

-130

-120

-110

Delay (ns)

PDP (dB)

TX3 to RX3 Mean (

rms

) = 118 ns

Std Dev (

rms

) = 21 ns

Noise Threshold = -145 dB

4900 4920 4940 4960 4980 5000

-90

-80

-70

-60

-50

-40

-30

Frequency (MHz)

|H(f)|2 (dB)

Mean |H(f)|2

Mean |N(f)|2

Std Dev |H(f)|2

TX3 to RX4

|H(f)|2 (mean) = -41 dB

0 200 400 600 800 1000

-170

-160

-150

-140

-130

-120

-110

-100

Delay (ns)

PDP (dB)

TX3 to RX4 Mean (

rms

) = 55 ns

Std Dev (

rms

) = 21 ns

Noise Threshold = -145 dB

Figure 35. Magnitude squared of the channel performance and PDP for Tx3 to Rx1 

through Rx4 pairings in the 4900 MHz band.
59

4900 4920 4940 4960 4980 5000

-90

-80

-70

-60

-50

-40

-30

Frequency (MHz)

|H(f)|2 (dB)

Mean |H(f)|2

Mean |N(f)|2

Std Dev |H(f)|2

TX3 to RX5

|H(f)|2 (mean) = -44 dB

0 200 400 600 800 1000

-170

-160

-150

-140

-130

-120

-110

-100

Delay (ns)

PDP (dB)

TX3 to RX5 Mean (

rms

) = 61 ns

Std Dev (

rms

) = 27 ns

Noise Threshold = -145 dB

4900 4920 4940 4960 4980 5000

-90

-80

-70

-60

-50

-40

-30

Frequency (MHz)

|H(f)|2 (dB)

Mean |H(f)|2

Mean |N(f)|2

Std Dev |H(f)|2

TX3 to RX6

|H(f)|2 (mean) = -59 dB

0 200 400 600 800 1000

-180

-170

-160

-150

-140

-130

-120

Delay (ns)

PDP (dB)

TX3 to RX6 Mean (

rms

) = 138 ns

Std Dev (

rms

) = 18 ns

Noise Threshold = -145 dB

4900 4920 4940 4960 4980 5000

-90

-80

-70

-60

-50

-40

-30

Frequency (MHz)

|H(f)|2 (dB)

Mean |H(f)|2

Mean |N(f)|2

Std Dev |H(f)|2

TX3 to RX7

|H(f)|2 (mean) = -58 dB

0 200 400 600 800 1000

-170

-160

-150

-140

-130

-120

Delay (ns)

PDP (dB)

TX3 to RX7 Mean (

rms

) = 130 ns

Std Dev (

rms

) = 25 ns

Noise Threshold = -145 dB

4900 4920 4940 4960 4980 5000

-90

-80

-70

-60

-50

-40

-30

Frequency (MHz)

|H(f)|2 (dB)

Mean |H(f)|2

Mean |N(f)|2

Std Dev |H(f)|2

TX3 to RX8

|H(f)|2 (mean) = -60 dB

0 200 400 600 800 1000

-180

-170

-160

-150

-140

-130

-120

Delay (ns)

PDP (dB)

TX3 to RX8 Mean (

rms

) = 144 ns

Std Dev (

rms

) = 29 ns

Noise Threshold = -145 dB

Figure 36. Magnitude squared of the channel performance and PDP for Tx3 to Rx5 

through Rx8 pairings in the 4900 MHz band.
60

4900 4920 4940 4960 4980 5000

-90

-80

-70

-60

-50

-40

-30

Frequency (MHz)

|H(f)|2 (dB)

Mean |H(f)|2

Mean |N(f)|2

Std Dev |H(f)|2

TX3 to RX9

|H(f)|2 (mean) = -63 dB

0 200 400 600 800 1000

-180

-170

-160

-150

-140

-130

-120

Delay (ns)

PDP (dB)

TX3 to RX9 Mean (

rms

) = 133 ns

Std Dev (

rms

) = 20 ns

Noise Threshold = -145 dB

4900 4920 4940 4960 4980 5000

-90

-80

-70

-60

-50

-40

-30

Frequency (MHz)

|H(f)|2 (dB)

Mean |H(f)|2

Mean |N(f)|2

Std Dev |H(f)|2

TX3 to RX10

|H(f)|2 (mean) = -73 dB

0 200 400 600 800 1000

-190

-180

-170

-160

-150

-140

Delay (ns)

PDP (dB)

TX3 to RX10 Mean (

rms

) = 165 ns

Std Dev (

rms

) = 47 ns

Noise Threshold = -145 dB

4900 4920 4940 4960 4980 5000

-90

-80

-70

-60

-50

-40

-30

Frequency (MHz)

|H(f)|2 (dB)

Mean |H(f)|2

Mean |N(f)|2

Std Dev |H(f)|2

TX3 to RX11

|H(f)|2 (mean) = -40 dB

0 200 400 600 800 1000

-170

-160

-150

-140

-130

-120

-110

-100

Delay (ns)

PDP (dB)

TX3 to RX11 Mean (

rms

) = 76 ns

Std Dev (

rms

) = 11 ns

Noise Threshold = -145 dB

4900 4920 4940 4960 4980 5000

-90

-80

-70

-60

-50

-40

-30

Frequency (MHz)

|H(f)|2 (dB)

Mean |H(f)|2

Mean |N(f)|2

Std Dev |H(f)|2

TX3 to RX12

|H(f)|2 (mean) = -54 dB

0 200 400 600 800 1000

-180

-170

-160

-150

-140

-130

-120

Delay (ns)

PDP (dB)

TX3 to RX12 Mean (

rms

) = 136 ns

Std Dev (

rms

) = 17 ns

Noise Threshold = -145 dB

Figure 37. Magnitude squared of the channel performance and PDP for Tx3 to Rx9 through 

Rx12 pairings in the 4900 MHz band.
61

NIST Technical Publications

Periodical

Journal of Research of the National Institute of Standards and TechnologyCReports 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

MonographsCMajor contributions to the technical literature on various subjects related to the Institute's scientific and 

technical activities. 

HandbooksCRecommended codes of engineering and industrial practice (including safety codes) developed in cooperation 

with interested industries, professional organizations, and regulatory bodies. 

Special PublicationsCInclude 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 SeriesCProvides 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 (AlP). Subscription orders 

and renewals are available from AIP, P.O. Box 503284, St. Louis, MO 63150-3284. 

Building Science SeriesCDisseminates 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 safety characteristics of building elements and systems. 

Technical NotesCStudies 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 StandardsCDeveloped under procedures published by the Department of Commerce in Part 10, 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 NIST publicationsCFIPS and NISTIRsCfrom the National Technical Information Service, Springfield, VA 

22161. 

Federal Information Processing Standards Publications (FIPS PUB)CPublications 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. 1127), 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)CThe series includes interim or final reports on work performed by NIST 

for outside sponsors (both government and nongovernment). In general, initial distribution is handled by the sponsor; public 

distribution is handled by sales through the National Technical Information Service, Springfield, VA 22161, in hard copy, 

electronic media, or microfiche form. NISTIRs may also report results of NIST projects of transitory or limited interest, 

including those that will be published subsequently in more comprehensive form. 
62

U.S. Department of Commerce

National Bureau of Standards and Technology

325 Broadway

Boulder, CO 80305-3328

Official Business

Penalty for Private Use $300

)