STG 58 (December 2017) decided to create this topic to host discussions related to the positioning (indoor/outdoor) of tranceivers during simulations.

Discussions related to this topic are intended to conclude by the 59th meeting of STG (21-23 of March 2018).

The rapporteur of the outcome of the discussions to STG is Heykel Houas (ANFR): [email protected]

For more information on this topic, check also: http://jira.seamcat.org/browse/ST-10 

Dear all, here are my two cents to start a discussion on this forum's topic.

• A SEAMCAT implementation of two new ITU-R P.1411-9 site-general models as defined in §4.1.1 (street canyon below rooftop) and §4.2.1 (when one of the stations is above rooftop and the other below rooftop) has been proposed in STG(17)074. There is already a SEAMCAT implementation of the site-general model from ITU-R P.1411-7, that is now defined in §4.3.1 in the new version of Recommendation (for low antenna heights below rooftop and near the street level). Considering that these are all site-general (outdoor) models that do not specifically depend on Manhattan grid, I propose to collate those sub-models into one implementation of ITU-R P.1411-9 (site general models) and implement them in SEAMCAT in the first step. OFCOM would provide an extension of the corresponding patch for SEAMCAT implementation of ITU-R P.1411-9 site general models to encompass §4.3.1 in addition to §4.1.1 and §4.2.1.

• STG can independently of that continue discussing the implementation of users distribution based on Manhattan grid. As well as combination of propagation models to allow for indoor-to-outdoor links, indoor-to-indoor links (within the same building) and indoor-to-indoor links (between two different buildings).

• Indoor-to-oudoor propagation can be modelled using a combination of ITU-R P.BEL at one end of the propagation path and any appropriate outdoor propagation model (including but not limitted to ITU-R P.1411).

• Indoor-to-indoor propagation between two different buildings can be modelled using a combination of ITU-R P.BEL (at the two ends of the propagation path) and any other appropriate outdoor propagation model in between (including but not limited to ITU-R P.1411).

• Recommendation ITU-R P.1238 is to be used for indoor-to-indoor propagation (within the same building) and as such it is not to be combined with ITU-R P.1411 or ITU-R P.BEL. STG would need to consider the implementation of ITU-R P.1238 in SEAMCAT for indoor-indoor propagation (within the same building).

Kind regards,

Ivica

Dear Ivica,

Thanks for your very good contribution to start disussions. 

On my point of view, we could make progress by following your suggestions, which I quote:

"collate those [§4.1.1 and  §4.2.1] sub-models into one implementation of ITU-R P.1411-9 (site general models) and implement them in SEAMCAT in the first step."

Your proposal to provide an extension of the corresponding patch for SEAMCAT sounds excellent.

Discussions on the Manhattan grid could continue in parallel of that work to make the best use of time.

What are the views of the other STG members?

Best regards,

José

Dear all,

In my view, the situations indoor-outdoor are covered by the ITU-R P.2109 recently implemented as option to the local environments. The situation indoor - indoor is actually handled by all PMPs as 'different buildings', except the Extended Hata models which are able to set the flag 'same building', considering an own built-in indoor-indoor model.

When the side-general PMP ITU-R P.1411-9 is considered the first step, we would consequently need a side-general PMP ITU-R P.1238-9 on the next step.

Which sections additionally to section 3.1 are mandatory, which are optional?

• Can we ignore delay spread (section 4)?
• What's about polarisation and MIMO (section 5)?
• Can we suggest 'best antenna positions' (section 6)?
• Do we have to consider movements (section 8)?
• Are the rooms large enough to build clusters (section 9)?
• ....
• Shall the options be selectable by another plugin?

I think about for instance the Manhattan Grid which would have to decide whether the locations of RX and TX are indoor in the same building and at which floor of the building the components are located if not in the same room.

If there is common view of the 'requirements' I could start drafting an PMP to be presented to STG.

Regards,
Karl

Hi everybody,

it's a good idea from Ivica to distinguish the different tasks on that topic discussing:

1. the implementation of users distribution based on Manhattan grid

2. the (available or to implement in the future in SEAMCAT) propagation model options for indoor-to-outdoor links, indoor-to-indoor links (within the same building) and indoor-to-indoor links (between two different buildings).

I also agree with Jose on the fact that points 1 & 2 can be addressed in parallel as they are independant.

Concerning the point 1., I see one challenging step consisting in trying to determine "easily" if possible (in the sense it does not require a lot of time to compute this information when running SEAMCAT) the intersection area between the Manhattan Grid indoor/outdoor area and the coverage/simulation area of a given device (Tx/Rx of the link) to generate the locations of the device based on the percentage of indoor/outdoor users selected by the SEAMCAT user in the Scenario.

The reason why I think it's not an obvious task is that the distribution of locations users should respect the selected indoor/outdoor users apportionment in any given scenario (if this apportionment is possible, e.g. if you select 100% outdoor/0% indoor and the device is located within a small area included in a building, it won't be possible unless you're considering user in the balcony !) while accounting the Manhattan grid topology.

The Manhattan Grid, as a 2D matrix, can be seen as a (mathematical) matrix of tiles with a given status: indoor (if the tile hosts a building) or outdoor (likely a street, not an open area which would be different for a Madrid grid). Now, one idea could be to determine the area (let's call A) related to the device on the Grid, based on the selected option, e.g. a radius between (Tx,Rx)  or a set of parameters, e.g. a distance & an azimuth angle from another device. Therefore, each tile of A could belong to one of the two sub-areas of A: Aindoor & Aoutdoor. The location of the users can be generated , e.g. p_indoor percentage within Aindoor & p_outdoor percentage Aoutdoor. The tough part of this process seems to be the generic determination of A area.

If somebody has a different view  (e.g. another solution easier to implement) or does not understand my explanations, don't hesitate to let me know.

Concerning point 2, I have a (Matlab) implementation of a part of the Recommendation ITU-R P.1238-8 available (attached to this message) that was done by one of my students some years ago. This needs to be polished, checked and improved but this could be a working baseline file for those who think this propagation model can be useful as a new PMP for SEAMCAT (as an alternative to one option of the Hata Model). 

Heykel.

Dear all, 

My name is Mehdi BENSLIMANE I am in 2nd year in the ENSEA, I work on the project SEAMCAT ( Manhattan Grid )supervised by Mr HOUAS Heykel.

In our problem, we shall position on the fact of finding the way of handling the percentage of equipments outdoor/indoor in the grid when we shall position these equipments in buildings and outside while respecting these percentages.