# Data-Driven Analysis of Outdoor-to-Indoor Propagation for 5G Mid-Band Operational Networks
## 3 Experimental Setup and Dataset
### Collected Dataset  
Measurements were exported using the R&S ROMES software [55]. During the measurement campaigns, we found that both operators under analysis deployed 5G NR systems with a subcarrier spacing of 30 kHz. We also observed beam-based transmissions for Op1, with PCIs transmitting multiple SSBs (eight SSBs were detected at some measurement locations, while a lower number of SSBs were detected in other locations due to different propagation conditions), while Op2 PCIs were found to operate with a single SSB each. As an example, Figure 4 shows the received power measured at location 1 over time for all the SSBs of the same PCI of Op1 and for the unique PCI/SSB pair of Op2 based on a single measurement campaign. The variation in the received power of different SSBs is the result of the beamforming strategy adopted by the operator, because the SSBs are transmitted at different beams. In case of operator 1, multiple SSBs are being transmitted (each SSB is transmitted via a specific beam radiated in a certain direction) with a certain interval. The received signal strength of each SSB is detected for a certain period. As all the SSB are transmitted from the same BS with a certain interval in a certain direction, therefore, all SSBs experience same power variation pattern from BS to the scanner. The variation in the power for each SSB is directly related to the environmental effects. Regarding the power variations observed between operators, these are due to the different positions of the corresponding base stations that lead to different environment effects and propagation distance. The maximum and minimum SINR for Op1 was 18 dB and 3 dB, respectively. The maximum and minimum SINR for Op2 was 24 dB and 10 dB, respectively. Figure 3: Measurement locations at DIET Department. Green, blue, and red lines represent walls, windows, and doors, respectively. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Location** & **No. of** & **Total Duration** & **No. of PDPs** & **No. of PDPs** \\
**ID** & **Campaigns** & **[hh:mm:ss]** & **for Op1** & **for Op2** \\ \hline
1 & 8 & 01:22:39 & 4156 & 2414 \\ \hline
2 & 1 & 00:06:22 & 241 & 259 \\ \hline
3 & 1 & 00:03:50 & 115 & N/A \\ \hline
4 & 1 & 00:04:16 & 89 & 191 \\ \hline
5 & 1 & 00:04:55 & N/A & 294 \\ \hline
6 & 4 & 00:45:50 & N/A & 3158 \\ \hline
7 & 1 & 00:05:25 & N/A & 291 \\ \hline
8 & 1 & 00:06:18 & 259 & 266 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 3: Summary of measurement data available at each location; an N/A label indicates that no data are available at the corresponding location due to lack of 5G coverage by the operator. As mentioned in Section 3.2, traditional MPC identification algorithms adopt a peak-detection approach that relies on a comparison with a threshold. As a consequence, a high SNR is required in order to detect peaks associated to signal replicas without mistakenly identifying spurious noise spikes as MPCs; however, as already pointed out, the TSMA6 identifies MPCs as replicas of the signal that could be demodulated and decoded. As a result, the minimum threshold for reliably detecting an MPC corresponds to the threshold for the receiver to be able to demodulate the signal, which is \(-5\) dB according to the TSMA6 datasheet [47]. All measurements happened thus with an SINR at least 8 dB above the minimum threshold. Since there is no need to average multiple CIRs to obtain a reliable PDP, each sample collected by the TSMA6 corresponds to a PDP according to the definition provided in Equation (3) for a PCI/SSB pair detected at a given frequency carrier. The PDP is returned by the R&S TSMA6, with delay and power of each multipath component associated to that PDP. The ROMES4 software provides the details of the received peaks over the time with their corresponding powers and delay.