Comparison of the link budget with experimental performance of a wi max system

Hindawi Publishing Corporation
EURASIP Journal on Wireless Communications and Networking
Volume 2009, Article ID 247436, 8 pages
doi:10.1155/2009/247436
Research Article
Comparison of the Link Budget with Experimental Performance
of a WiMAX System
Jeffrey De Bruyne, Wout Joseph, David Plets, Leen Verloock,
Emmeric Tanghe, and Luc Martens
Department of Information Technology, Ghent University/IBBT, Gaston Crommenlaan 8 box 201, 9050 Ghent, Belgium
Correspondence should be addressed to Wout Joseph, wout.joseph@intec.ugent.be
Received 6 March 2009; Revised 20 August 2009; Accepted 12 November 2009
Recommended by David Laurenson
The performance of different modulation schemes of a broadband fixed wireless 802.16 (WiMAX) system in a sector is
experimentally determined and compared to link budget calculations using different path loss models. A link budget based on
path loss measurements of the actual WiMAX signal at 3.5 GHz for a typical residential scenario in a suburban environment
is determined. The link budget calculations show a reasonable agreement with actual performance measurements with certified
WiMAX modems. Carefulness is advised when these models are used for the actual deployment of a WiMAX network in a specific
area.
Copyright © 2009 Jeffrey De Bruyne et al. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution
License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly
cited.
1. Introduction
Fixed Wireless Access (FWA) systems such as Worldwide
Interoperability for Microwave Access (WiMAX), based
on the standards IEEE 802.16 [1] and HiperMAN [2],
are being installed for field trials nowadays and become
increasingly important. The advantages of fixed broadband
wireless access over wired systems are mainly the lower cost
and the flexibility for the deployment of the system. The
competitiveness of WiMAX will largely depend upon the
actual data rates and ranges that can be achieved.
In [3–5], link budget calculations (which are in fact
coverage estimations) have been performed using different
path loss models. However, these coverage estimations have
not been validated by performance tests. Theoretical analyses
and simulations of the performance of 802.16-based systems
have been investigated in [3, 4, 6–12]. In [11], measurements
of the carrier-to-interference-noise ratio (CINR) are shown
and the actual measured performance of an 802.16-based
system is investigated in [13].
The objective of this paper is to validate link budget
calculations with actual performance results. Therefore the
coverage is investigated in a sector for an IEEE 802.16-2004
system operating in Non-Line-of-Sight (NLOS) conditions at
3.5 GHz with a channel bandwidth of 3.5 MHz in a suburban
environment of Ghent, Belgium. For this analysis a path loss
model at 3.5 GHz is developed for suburban environments
in Belgium for a transmitter and receiver height of 15 m
and 2.5 m, respectively. Moreover, link budget calculations
have been made using the path loss model and exisiting ones
and compared to actual performance measurements of the
WiMAX system.
Sections 2 and 3 describe the configuration and method-
ology of this analysis. The path loss model and link
budgets are discussed in Section 4. The validation with actual
performance measurements is described in Section 5. Finally,
conclusions are presented in Section 6.
2. Configuration
2.1. Frequency Band Selection. When planning a FWA net-
work, the operator has to make a choice between the available
frequency bands. The selection of the frequency band to be
used has a major effect on the dimensioning and planning of
the FWA network.

2 EURASIP Journal on Wireless Communications and Networking
Here, the 3.5 GHz FWA band was chosen. The decision
was based on the fact that the band is licensed and interfer-
ence is under control. Higher transmission powers are also
allowed and the frequencies of the band are sufficiently low
to obtain a better range and coverage than, for example,
at 5.8 GHz. The 3.5 GHz FWA band is a licensed band and
powers of 35 dBm into the BS antenna are allowed [14],
while, for example, in the 2.4 GHz industrial, scientific and
medical (ISM) band only an equivalent isotropically radiated
power (EIRP) of 20 dBm is allowed.
2.2. Selected Parameters and Scenario. We will investigate
an outdoor scenario for residential applications in Ghent.
The height of the base station (BS) hBS is 15 m. We analyze
the outdoor receiver (Rx) height of hRx equal to 2.5 m
(representing the first floor of a house). At this height, the Rx
will be typically installed in residential neighborhoods. The
Rx is positioned at 2.5 m using a telecopic mast. The input
power Pi to the BS antenna is 35 dBm (3.2 W).
The considered WiMAX system is based on the IEEE
802.16-2004 standard. The base station (BS) antenna is a
120◦
sector antenna, with vertical polarization. The electrical
beam tilt is −2◦
(i.e., 2◦
below the horizontal plane). No
mechanical tilt is used. The dimensions of the antenna are
717 × 158 × 62 mm3. The Customer Premises Equipment
(CPE) antenna is a 60◦
directional antenna with dimensions
of 150 × 140 × 50 mm3. We consider outdoor CPE here. The
frequency under consideration is 3520 MHz (downlink (DL)
frequency). Figure 1(a) shows the BS on the roof and part of
the environment, and Figure 1(b) shows the CPE antennas at
a height of 2.5 m.
Table 1 summarizes the selected parameters and the
scenario under investigation. The gains of BS and Rx
correspond to a typical residential modem scenario, that is, a
BS antenna gain Gi = 14dBi and an Rx antenna gain Gr =
9.5dBi. The BS feeder loss is 0.5 dB and the Rx feeder loss
is 2.5 dB. The channel bandwidth (BW) of WiMAX systems
can be varied from 1.25 to 28 MHz [1, 2]. In this paper we
assume a BW of 3.5 MHz, because this bandwidth is typical
for Europe and this BW was granted by the authority for the
WiMAX field trial in Ghent.
2.3. Receiver Sensitivity. The minimum required Rx sen-
sitivity (Pmin [dBW]) can be calculated from the minimal
required receiver noise input power (Pn [dBW]) and SNR
(signal-to-noise ratio) by using the following formulas:
Pn = F + 10 · log(kT0B),
Pmin = Pn + SNR,
(1)
where F is the receiver noise figure (6 dB), k is Boltzmann’s
constant (1.38.10–23 Ws/K), T0 the absolute temperature
(290 K), and B the receiver noise bandwidth [Hz]. Table 2
shows the receiver sensitivity and SNR for the subscriber ter-
minal of the residential modem system under consideration
for a 3.5 MHz channel. Table 2 shows that the Rx sensitivity
and required SNR depend on the type of modulation and
Base station antenna
(a)
CPE antenna
Telescopic mast
(b)
Figure 1: Pictures of (a) base station antenna on roof (hBS = 15 m)
and (b) CPE antennas mounted on telescopic mast.
coding rate. These values are valid for BER = 10−6 (bit error
rate) in a 3.5 MHz channel at 3.5 GHz.
3. Methodology
Figure 2 shows a flow graph with the procedure to compare
the link budget calculations with the actual performance of
the considered system. First, the path loss and link budget
methodology, which is used for estimating the ranges for
the different modulation schemes of the WiMAX system will
be explained. Secondly, the validation methodology, where
the actual WiMAX performance measurements are executed,
will be discussed.
3.1. Path Loss and Link Budget Methodology (Figure 2)
3.1.1. Path Loss. The Rx antenna for the path loss mea-
surements is an omnidirectional Jaybeam antenna type
MA431X21 [15]. For the adjustment of the height of the Rx
we use a telescopic mast. The measurements are performed
with a Rohde & Schwarz FSEM30 spectrum analyzer (SA).
The output of the SA is sampled and stored on a laptop.
The center frequency is 3520 MHz (DL), the frequency span
is 20 MHz, and the resolution bandwidth (RBW) is 5 MHz.
Figure 3 shows a trace measured with the SA (with described
settings) of the actual WiMAX signal as a function of the
frequency. The measurement positions are acquired with a

EURASIP Journal on Wireless Communications and Networking 3
Table 1: Characteristics of the considered WiMAX system.
Parameter Value
Settings PHY
Carrier DL frequency 3.520 GHz
Modulation adaptive BPSK 1/2, QPSK 1/2, QPSK 3/4, 16-QAM 1/2, 16-QAM 3/4, 64-QAM 2/3, 64-QAM 3/4
Channel bandwidth 3.5 MHz
Cyclic prefix 1/16
BS power 35 dBm (3.2 W)
Maximum theoretical throughput 12.7 Mbps
hBS 15 m
hCPE 2.5 m
BS antenna gain Gi 14 dBi
BS feeder loss 0.5 dB
Polarization Vertical
Electrical beam tilt −2o
Dimensions 717 × 158 × 62 mm3
CPE antenna gain Gr 9.5 dBi
Rx feeder loss 2.5 dB
Distance between Rx antennas 15 cm
Table 2: Rx sensitivity for the subscriber terminal of the WiMAX
system for 3.5 MHz channel width (BER = 10−6, AWGN channel).
Modulation Coding rate SNR (dB) Rx sensitivity (dBm)
BPSK 1/2 11.5 −91
QPSK 1/2 14.5 −88
QPSK 3/4 16.5 −86
16-QAM 1/2 21.5 −81
16-QAM 3/4 23.5 −79
64-QAM 2/3 28.5 −74
64-QAM 3/4 29.5 −73
GPS device. Using a car, the Rx is moved in the environment
with a constant speed of 0.8 m/s.
The noise floor is determined for each measurement
track. The noise floor for the SA-settings used here is about
−77 dBm. Samples which are below the noise floor plus
10 dB (additional margin) are discarded. The measurement
value will also depend on the detector mode: the root-mean-
square (RMS) mode is used, as proposed in [16]. To remove
the fluctuations of the fast fading, the received signal strength
is averaged and sampled according to the Lee criterion [17],
that is, 50 samples for each 40 wavelengths. For an Rx height
of 2.5 m about 60,000 samples are stored for averaging and
further data processing. We consider distances from 30 m
to 1300 m from the BS, because no connection could be
obtained (see Sections 4 and 5) at further distances.
3.1.2. Link Budget. The calculation and tabulation of signal
powers, gains, losses, and SNR for a complete communica-
tion link is called a link budget, which is a useful approach
for the basic design of a communication system (Figure 2).
To determine the link budget and the coverage range of
the WiMAX system we use the parameters of Table 1 and
the path loss models described in Section 4.1 (method of
WiMAX system
Path loss and link
budget methodology Validation methodology
Spectrum analyzer
measurements
Received power (dBm)
Path loss model
Link budget calculations:
determination of ranges of
modulation schemes
CPE measurements
True performance
(modulation scheme)
Calculation of ranges of
modulation schemes
in zones
Comparison
Figure 2: Methodology comparing link budget calculations with
actual performance measurements.
Section 3.1.1) and in [18]. We have to remark that the link
budget is calculated for the CPE antennas and not for the
Jaybeam antenna, which is only used to determine the PL.
The shadowing margin and fade margin have also an
important role in the link budget. They depend on the
coverage and reliability requirements of the operator for the
system. The shadowing margin depends upon environment
and is calculated from the standard variation of the path
loss model and the coverage requirement [19]. In this paper
a coverage requirement of 90% at the edge of the cell is
considered. Furthermore, a fade margin of 10 dB is proposed.

3510 3515 3520 3525 3530
Frequency (MHz)
−80
−75
−70
−65
−60
−55
−50
P(dBm)
Figure 3: Trace of the WiMAX signal as a function of the frequency
measured by the spectrum analyser at NLOS location.
The fade margin takes the yearly availability of the system
into account. The link availability will be affected by clear-
air and rain multipath fading. Using the ITU-R P.530 model
[20] described in [21], a fade margin of 10 dB results in a
yearly availability of 99.995% for a cell radius of 10 km. In
this paper the downlink performance is analyzed.
3.2. Validation Methodology (Figure 2). The WiMAX system
includes besides the base station (BS), also CPE (Customer
Premises Equipment, also called WiMAX modems) for
residential users. The WiMAX system supports BPSK, QPSK,
16-QAM, and 64-QAM modulations and provides a per-
allocation adaptive modulation and coding scheme. This
means that the WiMAX system should ensure the most
robust link conditions with the highest data rate by optimally
selecting the best physical mode in DL at each different
location. Different CPEs are positioned in a minivan with
the antennas mounted outside the car on a telescopic mast
at a height hCPE of 2.5 m. For these outdoor measurements
used for validation purposes (Figure 2), the CPE antennas
have always been oriented in the direction where the Received
Signal Strength Indication (RSSI) reaches a maximum. The
direction of maximal RSSI is determined as follows. The CPE
antenna is slowly manually rotated and at the same time
the RSSI value is automatically displayed. By repeating this
procedure a few times, the direction with maximal RSSI is
obtained.
To obtain information of the several Radio Frequency
(RF) characteristics such as modulation scheme, CINR, and
received signal power, the webinterface of the CPE is used.
These parameters can be retrieved with a simple tool, which
stores the data in a text file. Only the DL is considered here.
The measurements (noted as “performance measure-
ments” here, not to be confused with the path loss measure-
ments in Section 3.1) are performed at different locations
in Ghent. Only that area in Ghent that is radiated by the
main lobe of the base station antenna is considered. This
area is divided into multiple zones separated 100 m from
each other. We consider only zones at distances between
100 m and 1300 m from the BS. The first zone is the area
within a distance of at least 100 m and at most 200 m from
the BS, the second zone is the area within a distance of
at least 200 m and at most 300 m from the BS, and so
forth. For each zone three locations are arbitrarily selected,
so in total 36 locations are analyzed (of which some of
them did not acquire connection). At every location the RF
parameters (particularly the assigned modulation scheme in
DL) are retrieved each second for a period of 720 seconds
(twelve minutes) by using the we tool. This measurement
period is necessary to execute performance tests to obtain
statistical relevant results. In Section 5 the results of these
actual performance measurements will be compared to link
budget calculations (presented in Section 4).
4. Path Loss Results
4.1. Path Loss Models. Path loss (PL) between a pair of
antennas is the ratio of the transmitted power to the
received power. It includes all of the possible elements of
loss associated with interaction between the propagating
wave and any objects between the transmitting and receiving
antennas [19]. The path loss is modelled according to a
lognormal shadowing model. In this paper the median path
loss is modelled as
PL = P0 + 10n · log
d
d0
+ χ, (2)
where d is the distance in m, P0 is the path loss in dB at an
arbitrarily chosen reference distance d0 in m, and n is the
dimensionless path-loss exponent. d0 is chosen to be 100 m
here (within the range of the measurements namely 30 m up
to 1300 m). Furthermore, χ is the shadowing fading variation
and has a standard deviation σ. The intercept P0 can be
determined in two ways:
(i) nonfixed intercept: the intercept P0 is considered as
a separate variable of which the value is determined
through a least-squares fit,
(ii) fixed intercept: the intercept P0 is chosen fixed and
equal to the free-space path loss at reference distance
d0, that is, P0 = 20log(4πd0/λ), where λ is the
wavelength in m (method of [18]).
The one-slope model’s parameters are determined for both
nonfixed and fixed intercept P0. A comparison between
nonfixed and fixed intercept path loss models is made to
examine which approach provides a better fit to experimental
data.
First, a fit with two parameters (n and P0, model 1, i.e.,
nonfixed intercept P0) is executed. Figure 4 shows the PL at
hRx = 2.5 m as a function of the distance BS-Rx. The RMS
deviation of the points of the figure is minimized with a
linear regression fit, where P0 and n are adjusted. We obtain
for model 1 a path loss exponent n = 3.44 and a standard
deviation of 7.13 dB. The parameter P0 equals 96.9 dB.

102 103
Distance BS-Rx (m)
50
60
70
80
90
100
110
120
130
140
PL(dB)
PL measurement
Model 1
Model 2
Figure 4: Scatter plot and linear regression fit of path loss (models
1 and 2) at 3520 MHz as function of the distance BS-Rx (hBS = 15m
and hRx = 2.5m).
Secondly, we perform a fit where only the parameter n
of (2) is adjusted (model 2, i.e., fixed intercept P0) and P0 is
defined as 20 · log 10(4πd0/λ), where λ is the wavelength in
m. With d0 = 100 m, P0 is 83.38 dB. As a result, we obtain
for model 2 a path loss exponent n = 5.34 and a standard
deviation of 8.33 dB. Figure 4 shows the PL models at hRx =
2.5 m as a function of the distance BS-Rx.
For model 1, the lowest standard deviation is obtained,
indicating a better resemblance with the experimental data.
This is of course due to the use of two parameters for the
fit. The path loss exponent derived in [18] (n = 4.86, σ =
8.2) for the suburban environment (Erceg C model, single
parameter [18]) is lower than the value obtained with model
2. This could be explained by the fact that the houses in
the environments of [18] contain less brick and reinforced
concrete material than the houses in this paper and that
suburban streets of [18] are mostly wider than the streets
in this paper. Suburban environments in Europe (such as
cities like Ghent) are thus more dense than in, for example,
the USA. The standard deviation determined in [18] for
suburban environment is about the same as the value
obtained with model 2.
4.2. Cumulative Distribution Function. To investigate the
correctness of the models, the cumulative distribution
function (CDF), that is, Prob[Deviation < abscissa] of the
difference between the experimental data and the mean path
loss model is analyzed. This CDF is then being fit using a CDF
of a lognormal distribution (in dB). The RMS deviation is
minimized with a linear regression fit, where the mean value
is set to zero and the standard deviation σ is adjusted.
In Figure 5, the experimental CDF and the lognormal fit
of the difference of the received power Pr and the received
power according to the model are shown for hRx = 2.5 m.
−25 −20 −15 −10 −5 0 5 10 15 20 25
Deviation between experimental values (dB) and model
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
Prob[deviation<abscissa]
Model 1: deviation
Model 1: fit
Model 2: deviation
Model 2: fit
Figure 5: Cumulative distributions of the deviations between
experimental data and models 1 and 2, and the linear regression
fits for these deviations.
The standard deviation σ of the lognormal fit equals 7.08 dB,
which is close to the 7.13 dB of the experimental data.
Also the CDF of the difference between the logarithmic
experimental data and the values predicted by model 2 is
made and this CDF is being fit to a CDF of a lognormal
distribution with mean value zero. The resulting standard
deviation σ of the lognormal fit equals 8.71 dB (only a
deviation of 0.38 dB from the experimental value of σ of
8.33 dB). The experimental CDF and the lognormal CDF are
also shown in Figure 5.
Both models deliver accurate results, but the use of the
first model (nonfixed intercept) is preferred because of the
following reason. In the literature it is generally accepted that
shadow fading samples are lognormally distributed. The K-
S (Kolmogorov-Smirnov) test is a goodness-of-fit test that
can be performed on the shadow fading samples to ascertain
this lognormality. The nonfixed intercept one-slope model
passed the K-S test at α = 0.05 level of significance; whereas
the fixed intercept model (model 2) did not pass the same
test. Also the standard deviation of the first model is 7.13 dB,
which is smaller than the 8.33 dB of the second model. This
shows that path loss is most accurately specified by a path
loss model with a nonfixed intercept.
4.3. Link Budget Calculation. To determine the coverage
range of the WiMAX system (link budget calculation), we
use the characteristics discussed in Section 3 and the path
loss models of formula (2) (model 1 and model 2) and the
model of [18]. The range that can be obtained depends on
the type of modulation. Figure 6 shows the range of each
modulation scheme for the considered system for hBS = 15m
and hRx = 2.5m as a function of the distance BS-Rx (the
histograms will be explained in Section 5). Each marker on
the curve of a certain model corresponds with a modulation
scheme and its range. BPSK 1/2 corresponds with the highest
ranges while 64-QAM will reach the shortest distances. BPSK
1/2 results in ranges up to 0.77 km for model 1, 0.63 km for

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400
Distance (d) BS-Rx (m)
BPSK
QPSK 1/2
QPSK 3/4
16QAM 1/2
16QAM 3/4
64QAM 2/3
64QAM 3/4
Modulationscheme
0
0.5
1
0.5
1
0.5
1
0.5
1
0.5
1
0.5
1
0.5
1
P(d≤MS≤d+100m)
New model 1
New model 2
Erceg C
Avg performance meas
Figure 6: WiMAX modulation schemes as a function of the distance for path loss model 1, model 2, and Erceg C model compared to the
average actual performance (P(d ≤ MS ≤ d + 100m), with d = distance BS-Rx, represents the probability (P) that a certain modulation
scheme (MS) occurs in a zone d to d + 100m from the BS).
model 2 and 0.78 km for the model of [18], terrain C, that is,
suburban regions with flat terrain and low tree density, while
64-QAM 3/4 is only possible up to about 0.24 km for model
1, 0.29 km for model 2 and 0.33 km for the model of [18].
Figure 6 shows a reasonable correspondance between
the range estimations of the different path loss models
for suburban environments. The deviations are due to
differences in environmental model types (one or two
parameters), and the used equipment (such as the WiMAX
base station, and antennas). When coverage estimations are
made, the used path loss model should be carefully selected.
How these ranges correspond with the true performance will
be analyzed in Section 5.
5. Validation
Figure 6 shows the results of the actual performance mea-
surements executed on the used WiMAX system at different
locations. The different modulation schemes (left y-axis)
as a function of the distance are shown. At each location
(corresponding with a certain distance from the BS), the
used modulation scheme is monitored (see Section 3.2) each
second during a period of 12 minutes (in total 3∗720 = 2160
samples per location). Thus each modulation scheme (MS)
can occur several times at a certain distance.
For each modulation scheme separately (right y-axis),
the different zones where the modulation scheme occurs are
collected and classified into a histogram by splitting the range
of the data into equal-sized bins (or zones) of 100 m (starting
from 0 m until 1300 m, see Section 3.2). Each histogram
in Figure 6 shows the ratio of the number of the samples
belonging to each zone to the total number of samples of a
modulation scheme. These histograms show thus how the
different modulation schemes are distributed as a function
of the distance to the BS. This ratio is noted as P(d ≤ MS ≤
d + 100m) with d = distance BS-Rx, or the probability that
a certain modulation scheme occurs in a zone d to d + 100m
from the BS. Figure 6 shows, for example, that 64-QAM
3/4 only appears up to a distance of 400 m and reaches a
maximum between 200 m and 300 m (with a probability of
about 0.65). BPSK occurs from 500 m up to 1300 m, with a
maximal probability of 0.3 in the zone between 900 m and
1000 m.
A relative high correlation coefficient of −0.70 between
modulation scheme and distance is obtained: the larger the
distance, the lower the modulation scheme. However, this
correlation is lower than the correlation coefficients of the
path loss models, which is about −0.99 (almost perfectly
correlated). The lower correlation of the true performance
is due to the significant influence of “local factors” (such
as high buildings, small streets), which can largely degrade
the performance at the receiver side. Path loss models take
these circumstances less into account. Therefore one should
be careful when using these path loss models to estimate the
range of a particular WiMAX system.
The curve “avg performance meas” (Figure 6) is calcu-
lated by averaging the samples for each modulation scheme.
This curve shows the average range corresponding to a
certain modulation scheme. BPSK 1/2 (and QPSK 1/2)
corresponds again with the highest ranges while 64-QAM
will reach the shortest distances. BPSK 1/2 and QPSK 1/2
reach about the same range (for the true performance) due to
the limited number of locations that have been investigated
(more locations would result in higher ranges for BPSK 1/2
than for QPSK 1/2). Comparing the curve of the average per-
formance with the curves of the link budget calculations of
the different path loss models, a reasonable correspondance
can be observed for all path loss models. While the average
performance of BPSK 1/2 and 64-QAM 3/4 corresponds with
ranges 0.97 km and 0.26 km, the link budget calculations for,

for example, model 1 correspond with ranges of 0.77 km and
0.24 km, respectively. The differences between link budget
calculations and average actual performance may be due to
the fact that the performance measurements with the CPEs
are performed with directional CPE antennas that always
have been oriented in the direction where the RSSI reaches
a maximum (see Section 3.2).
This study shows that one has to be careful when
performing link budget calculations for suburban environ-
ments. These calculations can thus be used to make a
rough estimation of the number of required base stations
for the deployment of WiMAX in a suburban environment
(shown by reasonably agreement with average performance).
A more detailed site-survey (such as the method described in
Section 3.2) is advised for actual deployment of a WiMAX
system.
6. Conclusions
In this paper propagation measurements and actual perfor-
mance tests for fixed wireless systems operating at 3.52 GHz
are analyzed and discussed. A statistical path loss model
at 3.5 GHz for a base station antenna in a suburban
environment is developed and link budget calculations
are performed using different models. The calculations
are validated using performance measurements of a real
WiMAX system. Average performance results based on
measurements correspond reasonably well with the ranges
calculated with different path loss models. While link budget
calculations are almost perfectly correlated with distance,
the actual performance measurements are less correlated
with the distance. Path loss models can be used to make
an estimation of the number of required base stations
within a specific environment, but a detailed site-survey
is advised for actual deployment of the WiMAX base
stations.
Acknowledgments
This work was supported by the IBBT-CIcK project, co-
funded by the Interdisciplinary Institute for BroadBand
Technology (IBBT), a research institute founded by the
Flemish Government in 2004, and the involved companies
and institutions. W. Joseph is a Postdoctoral Fellow of the
FWO-V (Research Foundation at Flanders).
References
[1] IEEE Std. 802.16—IEEE standard for local and metropolitan
area networks, “Part 16: air interface for fixed broadband
wireless access systems,” 2004.
[2] ETSI, “ETSI broadband radio access networks (BRAN)
HIPERMAN physical (PHY) layer. Standards TS 102 177,”
2003.
[3] W. Joseph and L. Martens, “Performance evaluation of
broadband fixed wireless system based on IEEE 802.16,”
in Proceedings of the IEEE Wireless Communications and
Networking Conference (WCNC ’06), vol. 2, pp. 978–983, Las
Vegas, Nev, USA, April 2006.
[4] W. Joseph, W. Reynders, J. De Bruyne, and L. Martens,
“Influence of channel models and MIMO on the performance
of a system based on IEEE 802.16,” in Proceedings of the
IEEE Wireless Communications and Networking Conference
(WCNC ’07), pp. 1826–1830, Hong Kong, March 2007.
[5] V. S. Abhayawardhana, I. J. Wassellt, D. Crosby, M. P. Sellars,
and M. G. Brown, “Comparison of empirical propagation path
loss models for fixed wireless access systems,” in Proceedings of
the IEEE Vehicular Technology Conference (VTC ’05), vol. 1, no.
1, pp. 73–77, Stockholm, Sweden, May 2005.
[6] C. F. Ball, E. Humburg, K. Ivanov, and F. Treml, “Comparison
of IEEE 802.16 WiMAX scenarios with fixed and mobile
subscribers in tight reuse,” European Transactions on Telecom-
munications, vol. 17, no. 2, pp. 203–218, 2006.
[7] L. Nuaymi and Z. Noun, “Simple capacity estimations in
WiMAX/802.16 system,” in Proceedings of the IEEE Inter-
national Symposium on Personal, Indoor and Mobile Radio
Communications (PIMRC ’06), pp. 1–5, Helsinki, Finland,
September 2006.
[8] J. Li and S.-G. Haggman, “Performance of IEEE 802.16-2004
based system in jamming environment and its improvement
with link adaptation,” in Proceedings of the International Sym-
posium on Personal, Indoor and Mobile Radio Commumications
(PIMRC ’06), pp. 1–5, Helsinki, Finland, September 2006.
[9] A. Ghosh, J. G. Andrews, R. Chen, and D. R. Wolter, “Broad-
band wireless access with WiMax/802.16: current performance
benchmarks, and future potential,” IEEE Communications
Magazine, vol. 43, no. 2, pp. 129–136, 2005.
[10] C. Hoymann, M. Puttner, and I. Forkel, “The HIPERMAN
standard—a performance analysis,” in Proceedings of the
IST Mobile & Communication Summit, pp. 827–831, Aveiro,
Portugal, June 2003.
[11] A. V. Rial, H. Kraus, J. Hauck, and M. Buchholz, “Measure-
ments and analysis of a WiMAX field trial at 3.5 GHz in an
urban environment,” in Proceedings of IEEE International Sym-
posium on Broadband Multimedia Systems and Broadcasting
(BMSB ’07), Orlando, Fla, USA, March 2007.
[12] T. Tsourakis and K. Voudouris, “WiMAX network planning
and system’s performance evaluation,” in Proceedings of the
IEEE Wireless Communications and Networking Conference
(WCNC ’07), pp. 1948–1953, Hong Kong, March 2007.
[13] J. De Bruyne, W. Joseph, L. Martens, C. Olivier, and W. De
Ketelaere, “Field measurement and performance analysis of an
802.16 system in a suburban environment,” IEEE Transactions
on Wireless Communications, vol. 8, no. 3, pp. 1424–1434,
2009.
[14] ETSI EN 301 021 V1.6.1, “Fixed radio systems; point-
to-multipoint equipment; time division multiple access
(TDMA); point-to-multipoint digital radio systems in fre-
quency bands in the range 3 GHz to 11 GHz,” 2003–2007.
[15] Jaybeam, “MA431X21,” http://www.amphenol-jaybeam.com/
datasheet files/MA431X21.pdf.
[16] ITU-R Recommendation SM.1708, “Field-strength measure-
ments along a route with geographical coordinate registra-
tions,” 2005.
[17] W. C. Y. Lee, Mobile Communications Design Fundamentals,
John Wiley & Sons, New York, NY, USA, 1993.
[18] V. Erceg, L. J. Greenstein, S. Tjandra, et al., “An empirically
based path loss model for wireless channels in suburban envi-
ronments,” IEEE Journal on Selective Areas in Communication,
vol. 17, no. 7, pp. 1205–1211, 1999.
[19] S. R. Saunders, Antennas and Propagation for Wireless Com-
munication Systems, John Wiley & Sons, New York, NY, USA,
1999.

[20] ITU-R Recommendation P.530-10, “Propagation data and
prediction methods required for the design of terrestrial line-
of-sight systems”.
[21] ECC Report 33, “The analysis of the coexistence of FWA cells
in the 3.4–3.8 GHz band,” May 2003.

Comparison of the link budget with experimental performance of a wi max system

More Related Content

What's hot (19)

Viewers also liked (15)

Similar to Comparison of the link budget with experimental performance of a wi max system (20)

More from Pfedya (8)

Comparison of the link budget with experimental performance of a wi max system