Indoor RMS Delay Spread
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140
RMS Delay Spread (nsec)
CDF (% < Abscissa)
A B C F G J K
FIGURE 3.32 Partial summary of some measured indoor delay spread values.
speaking carrier frequency, BW, cell radius, country, environment, hBS, hMS, and so on. Similarly, no
attempt has been made to normalize the propagation measurements; they are presented and some
observations are discussed. The first question of concern is given the popular frequency bands used;
is there a difference in delay spread? In considering the 850 MHz and 1.9 GHz frequency bands, the
measurements revealed the RMS delay spread was statistically equivalent. In Fig. 3.35, we plot some
results originally published by Devasirvantham in the Red Bank, NJ area [70, 71].
WIRELESS MULTIPATH CHANNEL 143
NYC & Japan (LOS) Outdoor Average Delay Spread
??“40
??“30
??“20
??“10
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Time Delay (?µsec)
Power Delay Profile (dB)
NYC
Japan (LOS)
FIGURE 3.34 Example PDP of an outdoor channel.
Residential Plot
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
0 100 200 300 400 500
RMS Delay Spread (nsec)
CDF (% < RMS)
B
A
FIGURE 3.35 CDF of the measured RMS values in outdoor residential areas.
Pages:
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
238