SE43(11)84

ECC
CEPT

Electronic Communications Committee

12th Meeting of SE43

14-16 December 2011

Date issued: 9 December 2011

Source: EBU
Subject: Standard deviation for free space propagation

Summary
The attached contribution investigates the behaviour of signals transmitted over short distances.
The simplest description is using free space loss: LOSSdB = 32.5 + 20 log fMHz + 20 log dkm.
A precise value of the loss is associated with each frequency, f, and path distance, d.
However, ‘free space’ is valid only for paths distant from any source of reflection. When reflections
are taken into account, the behaviour of the received signal approximates that of free space, with
wide variations, which also depend on frequency, path distance, number of reflective surfaces, and
corresponding reflection coefficients.
The attachment deals with 2-ray and 3-ray reflection scenarios and it is shown that the differences
in received signal can differ from free space by as much as 9 dB for only 2 reflections.
Therefore it is concluded that a standard deviation, fs, of the free space model should be used
when performing statistical calculations for location probability.
In particular, fs = 3.5 dB, as specified in the SEAMCAT Hata model, is the appropriate value.
It is also proposed that the report below be included as an annex in the SE43 report in order to
ensure that there is no further misunderstanding of the need for a standard deviation when dealing
with free space propagation over short distances near the surface of the earth.

1
 EBU TECHNICAL

... December 2011

FREE SPACE PROPAGATION AND STANDARD DEVIATION

1. INTRODUCTION
SE43 has been considering WSD eirp limits to protect DTTB reception at short distances of the
order of 2 m to 20 m. The free space propagation model used has followed the SEAMCAT Hata
model which has been devised (or at least approved) by the mobile community. This model
includes a standard deviation of 3.5 dB for distances up to 40 m, and up to 17 dB for distances
between 40 m and 100 m.
Nevertheless, recently some SE43 delegates have advocated using 0 dB for the free space
standard deviation.
The present contribution presents some theoretical arguments against reducing the standard
deviation from 3.5 dB.
2. THE 2-RAY MODEL
When calculating arriving field strength or power levels at a receiving site, the 2-ray model
assumes that a direct ray and a reflected ray arrive at the receive antenna. The geometry is shown
in Figure 1.

ddir
Ht

dref
hr

Figure 1 : 2-ray Geometry

Direct path length: ddir = (d2 + (Ht – hr)2)
Reflected path length: dref = (d2 + (Ht + hr)2)
Coefficient of reflection: R  [-1, 1]
f (frequency): 500 MHz, 600 MHz, 750 MHz
 (wavelength): 0.6 m, 0.5 m, 0.4 m
Antenna heights: Ht = 1.5 m, hr = 1.5 m; Ht = 10 m, hr = 10 m
Phase difference:  = 2(dref – ddir)/
Received power:
Prec = PtGtGr x { abs[1/ddir +Rexp(i)/dref]/(4)}2 = PtGtGr x FAC(d;R)
We will express FAC in dB: FAC(d;R) = -10 log { abs[1/ddir +Rexp(i)/dref]/(4)}2 and then FAC is
simply the propagation LOSS.

2
2.1 Mobile WSD (1.5 m) to mobile DTTB (1.5 m), 2 m separation
Figure 2a displays the LOSS at 2 m distance as a function of the reflection coefficient, with  as
parameter. The frequency range of interest is 500 to 750 MHz ( = 0.4, 0.5, 0.6 m).
FAC(2 m; R) as a function of R (Parameter  )
H = 1.5 m, H = 1.5 m
t r
43

42

41

40  = 0.4 m
 = 0.5 m
39  = 0.6 m

38

37
LOSS (dB)

36

35

34

33

32

31

30

29
-1 -0.9 -0.8 -0.7 -0.6 -0.5 -0.4 -0.3 -0.2 -0.1 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
Reflection coefficient R

Figure 2a: 2-ray propagation loss vs. R at 2 m separation;  = 0.4, 0.5, 0.6 m
It is seen that the median free space loss with no reflection (i.e. ‘pure’ free space loss) varies by
about 3.5 dB with  over the frequency range of interest (see the ellipse at R = 0)1. A close-up of
the Figure for  = 0.5 m is shown in Figure 2b. The rest of the investigation concerns itself with
 = 0.5 m only.
FAC(2 m;R): LOSS at 2 m with 2-ray model
34.5
34.4

34.2

34

33.8

33.6

33.4
LOSS (dB)

33.2

33

32.8

32.6

32.4

32.2

32
-1 -0.9 -0.8 -0.7 -0.6 -0.5 -0.4 -0.3 -0.2 -0.1 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
Reflection coefficient

1 This is only mentioned because the WSD eirp limits are sometime proposed on the basis of 650 MHz
frequency.
3
 Figure 2b: 2 ray propagation loss vs. reflection coefficient at 2 m separation;  = 0.5 m
The largest value of FAC is FAC(2 m;R = -0.43) = 34.29 dB; the least value of FAC is FAC(2 m;
R = 1.0) = 32.05 dB. FAC(2 m; R = 0) = 34.08 dB (red circle) corresponds to no reflection, i.e. ‘true’
free space propagation. Then it is apparent a 2.2 dB reduction of free space loss could occur.
In Figure 3 we consider the variation of the 2-ray loss in the vicinity of 2 m separation distance (i.e.
varying from 1 m to 3 m). The parameter is R, the reflection coefficient ( = 0.5 m).
2-RAY FAC(d;R): LOSS vs. DISTANCE: PARAMETER R
H = 1.5 m; H = 1.5 m
t r
48

47

46
R = -1.0
45 R = -0.5
44 R = 0.0
R = 0.5
43 R = 1.0
42

41

40

39
LOSS (dB)

38

37

36

35

34

33

32

31

30

29

28

27

26
1 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.7 1.8 1.9 2 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.5 2.6 2.7 2.8 2.9 3 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 3.5
distance (m)

Figure 3: 2-ray variation of the LOSS around 2 m separation,  = 0.5 m

The (more or less) straight slanted line corresponds to R = 0, that is, no reflection. It is seen that in
the immediate vicinity of d = 2 m (say between 1.8 m and 2.2 m) the variation of the LOSS (i.e. the
field strength) can be of the order of 4 dB or more when 2-ray reflections are taken into account.
The magnitude (and sign) of the variation depends on the distance and the reflection coefficient, R.
The horizontal ‘dot-dash’ line at LOSS = 34 dB represents the free space loss at d = 2 m (vertical
‘dot-dash’ line). Notice that the 34 dB loss level is not met between 2.6 m and 3.2 m when the
reflection coefficient R = -1.0 (see the green ellipse). This means that wanted fields may be
protected at 2 m separation, but not necessarily protected at around 3 m.
2.2 Fixed WSD (10 m) to fixed DTTB (10 m), 20 m separation
For the fixed WSD (10 m height) to fixed DTTB (10 m) situation, we consider a ‘lateral’ reflection,
from a nearby ‘wall’, represented in Figure 4. The path distance from the WSD antenna to the ‘wall’
is 10.4 m. Reflections can in principle occur anywhere there is some sort of reflecting surface in the
vicinity. In particular, there can be a multitude of reflecting surfaces providing a multitude of
interfering contributions (see section 3).

4
 10.4 m dref – 10 m

ddir

wall
Ht hr

3.65 m
9.7 m

Figure 4: 2-ray geometry with ‘wall’ (fixed WSD to fixed DTTB scenario)
Figure 5a displays the LOSS at 20 m distance as a function of the reflection coefficient, with  as
parameter. The frequency range of interest is 500 MHz to 750 MHz.
It is seen that the median free space loss with no reflection (i.e. ‘pure’ free space loss) varies by
about 5 dB with  over the frequency range of interest (see the ellipse at R = 0). A close-up of the
Figure for  = 0.5 m is shown in Figure 5b. The rest of the investigation concerns itself with
 = 0.5 m only.
In Figure 5b, with  = 0.5 m, the smallest value of FAC is FAC(20 m; R = -1.0) = 48.6 dB and the
largest is FAC(20 m; R = 1.0) = 60.0 dB; with no reflection (free space) FAC(20 m; R = 0.0) =
54.02 dB.
2-ray interference: FAC(20 m; x = 9.7 m, y = 3.65 m; R) as a function of R (Parameter  )
H = 10 m, H = 10 m
61 t r

60

 = 0.4 m
59  = 0.5 m
 = 0.6 m
58

57

56

55
LOSS (dB)

54

53

52

51

50

49

48

47
-1 -0.9 -0.8 -0.7 -0.6 -0.5 -0.4 -0.3 -0.2 -0.1 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
Reflection coefficient R

Figure 5a: 2-ray propagation loss vs. R at 20 m separation;  = 0.4, 0.5, 0.6 m

5
 2-ray interference: FAC(20 m; x = 9.7 m, y = 3.65 m; R) as a function of R (  = 0.5 m)
H = 10 m, H = 10 m
t r
61

60

59

 = 0.5 m
58

57

56
LOSS (dB)

55

54

53

52

51

50

49

48
-1 -0.9 -0.8 -0.7 -0.6 -0.5 -0.4 -0.3 -0.2 -0.1 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
Reflection coefficient R

Figure 5b: 2-ray propagation loss vs. reflection coefficient at 20 m separation;  = 0.5 m
In Figure 6 we consider the variation of the 2-ray loss in the vicinity of 20 m separation distance
(i.e. varying from 15 m to 30 m). The parameter is R, the reflection coefficient ( = 0.5 m).
The (more or less) straight slanted line corresponds to R = 0, that is, no reflection. It is seen that in
the immediate vicinity of d = 20 m (say between 19 m and 24 m) the variation of the LOSS (i.e. the
field strength) can be of the order of 4 dB or more when reflections are taken into account. The
magnitude (and sign) of the variation depends on the distance and the reflection coefficient, R.
2-RAY F AC(d m; x = 9.7 m, y = 3.65 m; R): LOSS vs. DIST ANCE: PARAMET ER R
H_t = 10 m; H_r = 10 m; \lamda = 0.5 m
88

86
R = -1.0
R = -0.5
82 R = 0.0
R = 0.5
R = 1.0
78

74

70
LOSS (dB)

66

62

58

54

50

46
15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30
distance (m)

Figure 6: 2-ray variation of the LOSS around 20 m separation,  = 0.5 m

6
3. SOME 3-RAY MODELS WITH AN ADDITIONAL ‘WALL’
It should be noted that the 2-ray model only takes account of 1 reflection. In environments where
several reflections might occur, the augmentation in field strength due to single reflections, as
shown in section 2, might be further increased. In this section we place an additional ‘wall’ in
various positions to introduce an additional reflection.
3.1 Mobile WSD (1.5 m) to mobile DTTB (1.5 m), 2 m separation
In this section we consider the case where a ‘wall’ stands behind the transmitter or receiver. In this
case we have two reflected rays which can combine with each other and with the direct ray (see
Figure 7).

Ht ddir dref2

dref1
hr
x

Figure 7: 3-ray geometry with extra wall behind

Then
Prec = PtGtGr x { abs[1/ddir +Rexp(i1)/dref2 + Rexp(i2)/dref2]/(4)}2 = PtGtGr FAC(d,x;R)
with
1 = 2(dref – ddir1)/, 2 = 2(dref – ddir2)/

For simplicity, we assume that the reflection coefficient, R, is the same for both reflections.
FAC(2 m, 0.5 m; R) as a function of R (Parameter  )
H = 1.5 m, H = 1.5 m
t r
40

39  = 0.4 m
 = 0.5 m
38  = 0.6 m

37

36

35

34
LOSS (dB)

33

32

31

30

29

28

27

26
-1 -0.9 -0.8 -0.7 -0.6 -0.5 -0.4 -0.3 -0.2 -0.1 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
Reflection coefficient R

Figure 8: 3-ray LOSS vs. R; x = 0.5 m,  = 0.4, 0.5, 0.6 m

7
Figure 8 shows the relationship between the 3-ray loss and the reflection coefficient R. The wall is
assumed to lie 0.5 m behind the DTTB receiver (or 0.5 m behind the WSD transmitter). Depending
on the value of , the widely differing possible behaviours of the LOSS is obvious: sometimes
monotonically increasing, sometimes monotonically decreasing, and sometimes doing a
‘turnaround’. Differences of as much as 10 dB can be seen.
In Figure 9, we examine the behaviour of the variation of the LOSS, as a function of R, for a given
 = 0.5 m, and various distances, x, of the ‘wall’ behind the DTTB receiver. Once again the
behaviour varies widely: differences of up to 10 dB can be seen.
3-RAY:FAC(2 m, x; R) as a function of R (Parameter x)
 = 0.5 m, H = 1.5 m, H = 1.5 m
t r
40

x= 0.1 m
39
x= 0.3 m
x= 0.5 m
38 x= 0.7 m
x= 1.0 m
x= 1.5 m
37

36

35
LOSS (dB)

34

33

32

31

30

29

28
-1 -0.9 -0.8 -0.7 -0.6 -0.5 -0.4 -0.3 -0.2 -0.1 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
Reflection coefficient R

Figure 9: 3-ray LOSS vs. R;  = 0.5 m, x = 0.1, 0.3, 0.5, 0.7, 1.0, 1.5 m
3.2 Fixed WSD (10 m) to fixed DTTB (10 m), 20 m separation
We refer once again to Figure 4 where a ‘wall’ has been introduced for the case of fixed WSD to
fixed DTTB. In the present section we introduce a second ‘wall’ (sorry, no Figure) which is the
mirror image (with respect to the plane of the WSD and DTTB antennas) of the initial ‘wall’. We
also assume for simplicity the same value of R for both ‘walls’.
Figure 10 shows the behaviour of the 3-ray scenario as a function of reflection coefficient, R, using
the wavelength, , as parameter. Again there is a large variation (as much as 15 dB) of the LOSS,
depending on R and .
In Figure 11 we consider the variation of the 3-ray loss in the vicinity of 20 m separation distance
(i.e. varying from 15 m to 30 m). The parameter is R, the reflection coefficient ( = 0.5 m).
The (more or less) straight slanted line corresponds to R = 0, that is, no reflection. It is seen that in
the immediate vicinity of d = 20 m (say between 19 m and 26 m) the variation of the LOSS (i.e. the
field strength) can be of the order of 9 dB or more when 2 reflections are taken into account. The
magnitude (and sign) of the variation depends on the distance and the reflection coefficient, R.

8
 3-ray F AC(20 m, x= 9.7, y =  3.65 m; R): LOSS vs. R: PARAMET ER 
Ht = 10 m; Hr = 10 m
60

59
 = 0.4 m
58  = 0.5 m
 = 0.6 m
57

56

55

54

53
LOSS (dB)

52

51

50

49

48

47

46

45

44
-1 -0.8 -0.6 -0.4 -0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
Reflection coefficient R

Figure 10: 3-ray propagation loss vs. R at 20 m separation;  = 0.4, 0.5, 0.6 m

3-ray FAC(d, x= 9.7, y =  3.65 m; R): LOSS vs. DISTANCE: PARAMETER R

H = 10 m; H = 10 m;  = 0.5 m
t r
86

82 R = -1.0
R= -0.5
R = 0.0
R = 0.5
78
R = 1.0

74

70
LOSS (dB)

66

62

58

54

50

46

42
15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30
distance (m)

Figure 11: 3-ray variation of the LOSS around 20 m separation,  = 0.5 m

9
4. CONCLUSIONS
It has been seen that the ‘free space’ losses can vary widely in the presence of reflections. We
have only considered a few cases with 1 and 2 reflections, but it can be expected that ‘in nature’,
there may be many more possible sources of reflection.
One example would be in an urban area where ubiquitous walls, billboards, cars, etc constitute a
reflective-interference nightmare. Another example at the other extreme would be the situation
within a room with at least 4 walls, a floor and a ceiling to provide reflective surfaces, not to
mention furniture, etc. Even in a rural area, we would have to contend with ground reflections, hills,
etc.
As has been shown, one or two reflections can give rise to decreases in the LOSS (i.e. increase in
potential interference) of as much as 9 dB. Additional reflections may make the situation even
worse.
The protection “scenarios” developed for the SE43 work were based on free space propagation
with no reflections, i.e. not realistic near the surface of the earth, or in an environment with many
reflective surfaces. To take proper account of the possibility of multiple reflections it would be
necessary to introduce a standard deviation of the median free space loss.
Therefore it is not justified to reduce the standard deviation below the presently used 3.5 dB for
short range ‘free space’ interference as has been suggested in SE43.

10