2014 5th International Conference on Intelligent Systems, Modelling and Simulation 2014
DOI: 10.1109/isms.2014.35
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Determination of a Suitable Correction Factor to a Radio Propagation Model for Cellular Wireless Network Analysis

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
6
0

Year Published

2017
2017
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
6
1

Relationship

0
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 7 publications
(6 citation statements)
references
References 5 publications
0
6
0
Order By: Relevance
“…The overall comparative result thus buttress the finding in [25] that there is no single or universal propagation model that exactly fits all terrains, applications, and environments. Similarly, the comparative performance evaluation result has clearly shown the finding in [26], that a radio propagation model that gives an acceptable prediction in one scenario might not be suitable in another scenario. Furthermore, the performance evaluation result of the two developed path loss propagation models for this study also shows that their predicted path losses are lower than the corresponding predicted values by the FSPL existing model.…”
Section: Comparative Performance Evaluation Of the Developed Modelsmentioning
confidence: 83%
“…The overall comparative result thus buttress the finding in [25] that there is no single or universal propagation model that exactly fits all terrains, applications, and environments. Similarly, the comparative performance evaluation result has clearly shown the finding in [26], that a radio propagation model that gives an acceptable prediction in one scenario might not be suitable in another scenario. Furthermore, the performance evaluation result of the two developed path loss propagation models for this study also shows that their predicted path losses are lower than the corresponding predicted values by the FSPL existing model.…”
Section: Comparative Performance Evaluation Of the Developed Modelsmentioning
confidence: 83%
“…The review also buttresses the findings in [8,9] that there is need for different empirical models for different types of radio signals at different locations under different conditions or terrains. Furthermore, the brief review buttresses the finding reported in [25] that a radio propagation model, which gives an acceptable prediction in one location might not be suitable in another location. This implies that there is no particular propagation model that can directly applicable in all scenarios without the use of suitable correction factor(s).…”
Section: Cost 231-hata Modelmentioning
confidence: 60%
“…In the table, all except two experiments, [49] and [50], used a variation of the low-cost, easyto-use, portable RF spectrum analyzer. In [49], the commercial high-end spectrum analyzer was used while in [50], the type of RF spectrum analyzer used was not mentioned. The preference for easy-to-use and low-cost RF spectrum analyzers confirms their adequacy for spectrum occupancy measurements.…”
Section: Discussion Of the Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In [52], no single model was found that produced a good fit consistently in all the areas experimented. In [50], Ericsson propagation model was the best-fit model with RMSE of 3.73 dB after a correction factor was added to the models equation. In [53], Standard Propagation Model (SPM) in the Asset network planning tool fitted well with the measurements.…”
Section: Discussion Of the Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%