Comparison of Signal Strength Prediction Models for Indoor-to-Outdoor and Outdoor-to-Indoor Wireless Communications

  • Aye Aye Myat Mandalay Technological University, Mandalay and 100107, Myanmar
  • Myo Myint Maw Mandalay Technological University, Mandalay and 100107, Myanmar
Keywords: COST 231 model, Indoor-to-outdoor, Outdoor-to-indoor, Path loss, Received signal strength.

Abstract

In wireless communication system, the propagation characteristics of the radio coverage areas such as indoor, outdoor, indoor-to-outdoor and outdoor-to-indoor are very important to acquire the accurate received signal strength. In this paper, the experiments are conducted for both indoor-to-outdoor and outdoor-to-indoor wireless communication environments to investigate how much the received signal strength values are different between them. To obtain the accurate received signal strength between the outdoor-to-indoor and indoor-to-outdoor areas, the COST 231 radio wave propagation model is extended by including additional path loss factors (Af) such as the building parameters, the heights of the transmitter and receiver, the distance between the transmitter and the receiver for each scenario. The proposed received signal strength prediction models for indoor-to-outdoor and outdoor-to-indoor wireless communication are validated by comparing with the experimental and predicted the received signal strength indicator (RSSI) values. According to the comparison results, the received signal power from the outdoor to indoor communication is higher than that of indoor-to-outdoor ones about -2 dBm or -3 dBm.

References

[1] T. S. Rappaport, Wireless Communications: Principle & Practice. Prentice Hall Inc., 1996, pp. 110-132.
[2] A. Valcarce and J. Zhang. “Empirical indoor-outdoor propagation model for residential areas at 0.9-3.5 GHz”, in Proc. IEEE Antennas and Wireless Propagation Letters, 2010, pp. 682-685.
[3] Z. Zhang, K. Sorensen and Z. Yun. “A Ray-Tracing Approach for Indoor/Outdoor Propagation through Window Structures”, The International Journal of IEEE Transactions on Antennas and Propagation, Vol. 50, pp. 742-748, 2002.
[4] Y.Miura, Y. Oda, and T. Taga. “Outdoor-to-Indoor Propagation Modeling with the Identification of Path Passing Through Wall Openings”, The International Journal of IEEE PIMRC, vol. 1, pp. 130-134, 2002.
[5] E. Hisham and K. Ivica. “Outdoor-to-indoor propagation characteristics of 850 MHz and 1900 MHz bands in macro-cellular environments”, In Proc. The World Congress on Engineering and Computer Science, 2014, pp. 235-241.
[6] G. Durgin, T. S. Rappaport and H. Xu. “Path loss and penetration loss measurements in and around homes and trees at 5.85 GHz”, The International Journal of IEEE Transactions on Communications”, vol. 46, pp 1484-1496, 1998.
[7] M. Alatossava and E. Suikkanen. “Extension of COST 231 path loss model in outdoor-to-indoor environment to 3.7 GHz and 5.25 GHz”, In Proc. 11th International Symposium on Wireless Personal Multimedia Communications, 2008, pp. 214-218.
[8] J. Adhavar and T. Sontakke. “2.4 GHz Propagation Prediction Models for Indoor Wireless Communications within Building”, The International Journal of Soft Computing and Engineering, Vol.2, no.3, 2012.
[9] M. Alatossava and E. Suikkanen, “Comparion of outdoor to indoor and indoor to outdoor MIMO propagation characteristics at 5.25 GHz”, in proceedings of IEEE 60th Vehicular Technology conference, 2007, pp. 445-449.
[10] E. Damosso, COST 231 Final Report, Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, 1996, pp. 167-174.
Published
2016-09-22
Section
Articles