# Low-Altitude Sensing Model: Analysis Leveraging ISAC in Real-World Environments
## 4 Performance Verification and Analysis
### Single Base Station Sensing Validation
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Flight Path**} & \multicolumn{4}{c}{**Error Measurement of the Sensing Range**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Sensing Accuracy at CDF 95\%**} \\ \hline
**Flight** & **Flight Height** & **Nearest Radial** & **Nearest Radial** & **Farthest Radial** & **Harizontal** & **Horizontal** & **Vertical** \\
**Direction** & **(m)** & **Distance** & **Diastance** & **Diastance** & **Diastance** & **Diastance** & **Diastance** \\ \hline Normal & 30 & 4.5m & 4.5m & 5.14\% & 5.14\% & 6.82 & 2.33 \\ /O\({}_{1}\)A\({}_{2}\) & 100 & 7.44\% & 9.59\% & 5.02\% & 5.04\% & 6.86 & 2.88 \\ Normal/O\({}_{3}\)A\({}_{3}\) & 300 & 7.07\% & 8.08\% & 3.18\% & 3.4\% & 7.5 & 3.17 \\
60\({}^{\circ}\)/O\({}_{1}\)P\({}_{1}\) & 30 & 4.5m & 4.5m & 8.04\% & 8.04\% & 5.86 & 2.89 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 6: Single base station horizontal direction error results. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Flight Direction** & \multicolumn{4}{c}{**Sensing Range**} & \multicolumn{4}{c}{**Sensing Accuracy at CDF 95\%**} \\ \hline (0\({}^{\circ}\), 40\({}^{\circ}\))/O\({}_{1}\)C & \begin{tabular}{c} Measured \\ farthest radial \\ distance (m) \\ \end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}{c} Theoretical \\ radial distance \\ (m) \\ \end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}{c} Error \\ percentage (\%) \\ \end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}{c} Measured \\ nearest radial \\ distance (m) \\ \end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}{c} Theoretical \\ nearest sensing \\ radial distance (m) \\ \end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}{c} Error value \\ radial distance \\ (m) \\ \end{tabular} & \
\begin{tabular}{c} Horizontal \\ positioning \\ accuracy (m) \\ \end{tabular} &
\begin{tabular}{c} Vertical \\ positioning \\ accuracy (m) \\ \end{tabular} \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 7: Single base station upward tilt direction test results. values. This was because hardware limitations and environmental interference prevented the signal from reaching the theoretical expectations at close distances during the actual tests. As a result, the actual nearest sensing radial distance was smaller than the theoretical value. In the horizontal direction, the reduction in radial distance affected the accuracy of the target positioning, leading to deviations from the theoretical values. Similarly, in the tests involving flight in the horizontal direction (O\({}_{1}\)P\({}_{1}\)) at the base station height, the radial and horizontal distances deviated from the theoretical values by 26.8 m, with a deviation ratio of approximately 8%. The reasons were similar to the nearest distance deviations in the normal direction. During the actual measurements, the combined effects of safety distance, hardware performance, and environmental factors caused deviations between the measured and theoretical values in both the radial and horizontal directions. Notably, the UAV could not be sensed at higher heights along the OP paths, which was consistent with the theoretical expectations in both the radial and horizontal directions. From the radial perspective, the signal attenuated significantly with increasing distance, exceeding the sensing range. In the horizontal direction, the target exceeded the theoretical sensing horizontal range at that height, making it impossible to sense the UAV. Based on these results, it can be concluded that the single base station sensing capabilities were consistent with the theoretical expectations. The single base station did have coverage blind spots, and the theoretical model accurately reflected the actual sensing range. The overall trend aligned well with the theoretical model. On the other hand, within the sensing area, the horizontal and vertical positioning accuracies within the CDF 95% range were statistically analyzed. The horizontal accuracy ranged between 5.86 and 7.5 m. As the test height increased, the horizontal positioning accuracy slightly decreased, but it still met the specified requirements.