## 4 Parameterization and Analysis of the Proposed TDL Model
### Average PDP and Tap Characteristics
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c} \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Taps**} & \multicolumn{5}{c}{**FS1**} & \multicolumn{5}{c}{**FS2**} \\ \cline{2-9}  & \(\tau_{m}\) **(ns)** & \(a_{m}\) **(dB)** & \(k_{m}\) **(dB)** & **Fading Distribution** & \(\tau_{m}\) **(ns)** & \(a_{m}\) **(dB)** & \(k_{m}\) **(dB)** & **Fading Distribution** \\ \hline
1 & 0 & 0 & 27.58 & Rice & 0 & 0 & 19.78 & Weibull \\
2 & 50 & \(-\)5.969 & 11.89 & Normal & 50 & \(-\)5.609 & 7.609 & Weibull \\
3 & 100 & \(-\)11.91 & 8.412 & Normal & 100 & \(-\)9.801 & 6.526 & Normal \\
4 & 150 & \(-\)13.99 & 7.784 & Normal & 150 & \(-\)12.61 & 5.974 & Normal \\
5 & 200 & \(-\)18.62 & 9.531 & Normal & 200 & \(-\)16.64 & 4.889 & Normal \\
6 & 250 & \(-\)20.82 & 8.476 & Normal & 250 & \(-\)19.00 & 6.674 & Normal \\
7 & 300 & \(-\)21.95 & 8.438 & Normal & 300 & \(-\)20.75 & 7.375 & Normal \\
8 & 350 & \(-\)23.38 & 7.428 & Normal & 350 & \(-\)22.07 & 7.236 & Normal \\
9 & 400 & \(-\)23.95 & 7.045 & Normal & 400 & \(-\)23.23 & 7.318 & Normal \\
10 & & & & & 450 & \(-\)24.33 & 7.363 & Normal \\ \hline \multicolumn{9}{c}{**FS3**} & \multicolumn{5}{c}{**FS4**} \\ \cline{2-9}  & \(\tau_{m}\) **(ns)** & \(a_{m}\) **(dB)** & \(k_{m}\) **(dB)** & **Fading Distribution** & \(\tau_{m}\) **(ns)** & \(a_{m}\) **(dB)** & \(k_{m}\) **(dB)** & **Fading Distribution** \\ \hline
1 & 0 & 0 & 20.03 & Rice & 0 & 0 & 15.96 & Weibull \\
2 & 50 & \(-\)4.789 & 8.905 & Weibull & 50 & \(-\)5.595 & 6.375 & Normal \\
3 & 100 & \(-\)8.425 & 8.679 & Weibull & 100 & \(-\)10.02 & 2.746 & Rice \\
4 & 150 & \(-\)10.16 & 3.404 & Nakagami & 150 & \(-\)12.88 & \(-\)1.846 & Nakagami \\
5 & 200 & \(-\)14.72 & 6.387 & Normal & 200 & \(-\)16.88 & 0.953 & Normal \\
6 & 250 & \(-\)17.13 & 7.760 & Normal & 250 & \(-\)18.98 & 2.481 & Normal \\
7 & 300 & \(-\)18.89 & 7.596 & Normal & 300 & \(-\)20.61 & 3.314 & Normal \\
8 & 350 & \(-\)20.17 & 7.353 & Normal & 350 & \(-\)21.81 & 3.395 & Normal \\
9 & 400 & \(-\)21.13 & 6.800 & Normal & 400 & \(-\)22.96 & 3.598 & Normal \\
10 & 450 & \(-\)21.86 & 6.508 & Normal & 450 & \(-\)23.86 & 3.602 & Normal \\
11 & 500 & \(-\)22.59 & 6.388 & Normal & 500 & \(-\)24.57 & 3.792 & Normal \\
12 & 550 & \(-\)23.24 & 5.747 & Normal & & & & \\
13 & 600 & \(-\)23.97 & 5.399 & Normal & & & & \\
14 & 650 & \(-\)24.81 & 5.136 & Normal & & & & \\ \hline \multicolumn{9}{c}{**FS5**} & \multicolumn{5}{c}{**FS6**} \\ \cline{2-9}  & \(\tau_{m}\) **(ns)** & \(a_{m}\) **(dB)** & \(k_{m}\) **(dB)** & **Fading Distribution** & \(\tau_{m}\) **(ns)** & \(a_{m}\) **(dB)** & \(k_{m}\) **(dB)** & **Fading Distribution** \\ \hline
1 & 0 & 0 & 17.08 & Weibull & 0 & 0 & 17.23 & Weibull \\
2 & 50 & \(-\)5.478 & 7.094 & Normal & 50 & \(-\)5.600 & 6.079 & Normal \\
3 & 100 & \(-\)10.06 & 3.857 & Rice & 100 & \(-\)10.35 & 3.925 & Normal \\
4 & 150 & \(-\)13.05 & 2.610 & Normal & 150 & \(-\)12.77 & 2.203 & Normal \\
5 & 200 & \(-\)16.93 & 2.075 & Normal & 200 & \(-\)16.78 & 2.164 & Normal \\
6 & 250 & \(-\)19.10 & 3.952 & Normal & 250 & \(-\)19.01 & 3.798 & Normal \\
7 & 300 & \(-\)20.83 & 4.471 & Normal & 300 & \(-\)20.68 & 4.496 & Normal \\
8 & 350 & \(-\)22.13 & 4.305 & Normal & 350 & \(-\)22.04 & 4.417 & Normal \\
9 & 400 & \(-\)23.21 & 4.540 & Normal & 400 & \(-\)23.15 & 4.535 & Normal \\
10 & 450 & \(-\)24.11 & 4.522 & Normal & 450 & \(-\)24.10 & 4.436 & Normal \\
11 & 500 & \(-\)24.54 & 4.244 & Normal & 500 & \(-\)24.86 & 4.522 & Normal \\ \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 3: Channel parameters of proposed TDL model for FS1 to FS6: delay, amplitude, K-factor and fading distribution for per tap. In our observations, the maximum number of tap in FS1 is the smallest among all six considered scenarios, where \(\tau_{max}=400\,\mathrm{ns}\) and \(\tau_{max}=\tau_{M}-\tau_{1}\). The maximum number of resolvable taps is 14 in FS3, whereas the delay and tap numbers are the same for scenarios FS4 to FS6.