3GPP TSG RAN WG1 #120bis R1-2502415
Wuhan, China, April 7th – 11th, 2025
Source: Sharp, Nokia, Ericsson, Apple, BUPT
Title: Curve fittings for UMi & UMa scenarios: DS, ASA, ASD LOS/NLOS
Agenda Item: 9.8
Document for: Discussion and Decision
Umi
Curve fittings for UMi DS, ASA LOS/NLOS Mean and Standard deviation (std) are present in R1-2502415_UMi_curve_fitting.pptx.
UMa
Curve fittings for UMa DS, ASA, ASD LOS/NLOS Mean and Standard deviation (std) are present in R1-2502415_UMa_curve_fitting.pptx.
Measurement Data
Raw measurement data for UMi DS, ASA LOS/NLOS Mean/Std and UMa DS, ASA, ASD LOS/NLOS Mean/Std are present in R1-2502415_consolidated_meas_data_rel14_rel19.xlsx.
|
Conclusion
To check and review the following results and measurement data provided in RAN1 #120 for further discussion in next RAN1 meeting. R1-2501426 contains the list of data sources for the results and measurements provided since RAN1 #116-bis until RAN1 #120.
Agreement
Adopt the following absolute delay parameters for InH scenarios.
Down-select between option 1, 2 and 3.
Table 7.6.9-1: Parameters for the absolute time of arrival model
Working Assumption
Intermediate angle values of the CDL channel is computed by
where s is a scale factor chosen to change the distribution of the angles. Table X shows required scale factor for typical desired angular spread values for AOD, AOD, ZOA, and ZOD.
Table X: Scale factor values for each CDL model
Note: the values are computed by formula option 2A defined in RAN1#119.
Agreement
Further study updates to the mean angle calculation in Annex used for calculation of the mean angle values for CDL-D/E channel model
Potential update of the power weighted mean angle is
Agreement
Discuss further on the following suggested text changes:
Agreement
RAN1 has identified that standard multi-panel glass penetration loss model may require updates at least for 6-24 GHz frequency range. Further discuss changes.
For standard multi-panel glass penetration loss model, study the following model changes:
Option 1) thickness dependent model without resonation effect
where
Default reference thickness for standard multi-panel glass is 3 cm
If model without resonation effect is selected, add note in TR that while glass material measurement may showcase resonation effect as a function of frequency and thickness, the model abstracts away the effect.
Option 2) thickness dependent model with resonation effect
For ,
where
Default reference thickness for standard multi-panel glass is 3 cm
Option 3) thickness dependent model without resonation effect and with air interface loss
,
Where X is the default thickness of the glass.
Parameters a, b, and X are FFS.
Note: for all options, consider the impact to overall building exterior penetration loss from the potential changes to glass penetration loss.
Agreement
RAN1 has identified that IRR glass penetration loss model may require updates at least for 6-24 GHz frequency range. Further discuss changes For IRR glass penetration loss model, study the following model changes:
Option 1) coating dependent model without resonation effect
For
where for single silver-coating; for double silver-coating; for triple silver-coating.
Default reference coating for standard multi-panel glass is single coating, i.e.
Default reference thickness for IRR glass is 3 cm
If model without resonation effect is selected, add note in TR that while glass material measurement may showcase resonation effect as a function of frequency and thickness, the model abstracts away the effect.
Option 2) coating dependent model with resonation effect
For
where for single silver-coating; for double silver-coating; for triple silver-coating.
Default reference coating for IRR glass is single coating, i.e.
Option 3) thickness dependent model without resonation effect and with air interface loss
,
Where X is the default thickness of the glass.
Parameters a, b, and X are FFS.
Note: for all options, consider the impact to overall building exterior penetration loss from the potential changes to glass penetration loss.
FFS: whether and how to incorporate thickness dependent affect for the IRR model. In this context, incorporation of thickness impact is considered a minor refinement of option 1 or 2 to better match the measurement data.
Agreement
Discuss further on potential update of concrete penetration model based on measurement provided by companies.
For updates of the concrete penetration loss model, further study between the following model changes:
Option 1) model with no separate air to interface insertion loss
Default reference thickness for concrete is 23 cm
Option 2) model with separate air to interface insertion loss
Default reference thickness for concrete is 23 cm
Note: for all options, consider the impact to overall building exterior penetration loss from the potential changes to concrete penetration loss.
Agreement
Discuss further on potential introduction of new material mode “cinder block” penetration model based on measurement provided by companies for concrete based walls.
Agreement
Discuss further on potential update of wood penetration loss model based on measurement provided by companies. The following is an example of a potential update:
Option 1) thickness dependent model without air interface loss
Default reference thickness for wood is 6 cm
Option 2) thickness dependent model with air interface loss
Where X is the default thickness of the wood.
Parameters a, b, and X are FFS.
Agreement
Discuss further on whether to introduce additional model to handle LOS probability impact from vegetation for SMa and details of the additional modeling component.
For suburban scenario, the down-select among the following LOS probability
Option 1)
Option 2)
Option 3)
Working Assumption
For parameters with multiple options, choose from one of the options in meeting RAN1#120-bis.
For information: O2I are barrowed from TR38.901 UMa O2I, LOS and NLOS parameters are barrowed from ITU M.2135 SMa if values are available. For colored values listed, values are based on measurement data from companies.
Agreement
Further study on introduction of a loss outdoor-to-indoor (O2I) building penetration loss model for SMa:
Consider the impact to overall building exterior penetration loss
Working Assumption
Corresponding Working Assumption (made in RAN1#119) is dropped.
Agreement
For UE antenna modeling of handheld devices, at least support directional antenna radiation pattern for calibration purposes.
Further study the following directional radiation pattern parameters
Agreement
RAN1 has identified that angular spread for following scenarios require necessary updates at least for 6-24 GHz frequency range. Further discuss necessary changes. Note: For UMa ASD, weak dependency to frequency was observed and the potential necessary changes may include changes to values across wide frequency ranges.
UMi LOS ASA
UMi NLOS ASA
UMa LOS ASD
UMa LOS ASA
UMa NLOS ASD
UMa NLOS ASA
UMa NLOS ZSA
Agreement
Conclude in RAN1 #120bis among the following:
Alt 1)
RAN1 has identified that delay spread for UMi LOS/NLOS and UMa LOS/NLOS scenario is smaller compared to delay spread in the TR at least for 6-24 GHz frequency range. Further discuss, necessary changes for UMi LOS/NLOS and UMa LOS/NLOS
Proponent companies to provide detailed information on potentially necessary changes to DS for scenarios in question.
Data samples for discussion on necessary changes for UMi LOS
Alt 2)
For the following scenarios, there is no consensus to update delay spread models due to lack of consistent and significant observed difference between model and measurements.
UMi LOS/NLOS and UMa LOS/NLOS
Agreement
Conclude in RAN1 #120bis among the following:
Alt 1)
RAN1 has identified that number of clusters spread for [InH LOS/NLOS, UMi LOS/NLOS, and UMa LOS/NLOS] scenario is smaller compared to delay spread in the TR at least for 6-24 GHz frequency range. Further discuss, necessary changes for [InH LOS/NLOS, UMi LOS/NLOS, and UMa LOS/NLOS].
RAN1 to determine which scenarios among [InH LOS/NLOS, UMi LOS/NLOS, and UMa LOS/NLOS] requires necessary changes.
Data samples for discussion on necessary changes
Proponent companies to provide detailed information on potentially necessary changes to number of clusters for scenarios in question.
Alt 2)
For the following scenarios, while sources have observed smaller number of clusters for various deployment scenario from measurement taken for 6 – 24 GHz frequency range, due to impact on frequency continuity outside 6 – 24 GHz frequency range, RAN1 concludes that there is no census to update number of clusters for all existing scenarios.
Agreement
Conclude in RAN1 #120bis to either (1) introduce an optional modeling component for polarization variability for each cluster for NLOS component of the channel or (2) no consensus to introduce polarization variability for each cluster for NLOS component of the channel.
Agreement
The following agreement replaces conclusion made in RAN1 #120 regarding starting point for further discussion for calibration.
For new scenarios, and if changes are made to existing scenarios, interested companies to perform large scale calibration based on the following simulation assumptions. Use the following updates to TR38.901 as baseline assumption for calibration.
Additional calibration parameters can be found in Table 7.8-1A. It is assumed that parameters from Table 7.8-1 (of TR38.901) is used if unspecified by the additional calibration parameters in Table 7.8-1A. In addition, calibration of UMa and UMi-Street Canyon at 6 GHz carrier frequency using simulation assumptions in Table 7.8-1 with updated channel modeling is part of the additional calibration.
Table 7.8-1A: Simulation assumptions for large scale calibration
Note 1: Parameters in [ ] are subject for further check and are intent as tentative values for calibration checks for companies.
Note 2: Calibration of UMa and UMi in 6 and 7 GHz is subject to any changes to UMa and UMi channel modeling parameters. In case no changes are concluded, UMa and UMi in 6 and 7 GHz can be removed from calibration.
Agreement
The following agreement replaces conclusion made in RAN1 #120 regarding starting point for further discussion for calibration.
For new scenarios, and if changes are made to existing scenarios, interested companies to perform full calibration based on the following simulation assumptions. Use the following updates to TR38.901 as baseline assumption for calibration.
Additional full calibration parameters can be found in Table 7.8-2A. It is assumed that parameters from Table 7.8-2 (of TR38.901) is used if unspecified by the additional full calibration parameters in Table 7.8-2A. In addition, calibration of UMa and UMi-Street Canyon at 6 GHz carrier frequency using simulation assumptions in Table 7.8-2 with updated channel modeling is part of the additional calibration. For calibration of UMa and UMi-Street Canyon at 6 GHz, the following is additionally assumed.
SCS of 15 kHz
UT attachment is based on RSRP (formula) from BS port 0
BS antenna configuration 1 and 2 both apply
UT antenna configuration, pattern, and polarization modeling is labeled as UT antenna config A
Table 7.8-2A: Simulation assumptions for full calibration
Note 1: Parameters in [ ] are subject for further check and are intent as tentative values for calibration checks for companies.
Note 2: Calibration of UMa and UMi in 6 and 7 GHz is subject to any changes to UMa and UMi channel modeling parameters. In case no changes are concluded, UMa and UMi in 6 and 7 GHz can be removed from calibration.
Agreement
The following agreement replaces conclusion made in RAN1 #120 regarding starting point for further discussion for calibration.
For new scenarios, and if changes are made to existing scenarios, interested companies to perform near field channel modeling calibration based on the following simulation assumptions. Use the following updates to TR38.901 as baseline assumption for calibration.
Additional calibration parameters for near field channel modeling can be found in Table 7.8-7. It is assumed that parameters from Table 7.8-2 is used if unspecified by the additional full calibration parameters in Table 7.8-7.
Table 7.8-7: Simulation assumptions for calibration for near field channel modeling
Note: Parameters in [ ] are subject for further check and are intent as tentative values for calibration checks for companies.
Agreement
The following agreement replaces conclusion made in RAN1 #120 regarding starting point for further discussion for calibration.
For new scenarios, and if changes are made to existing scenarios, interested companies to perform near field channel modeling calibration based on the following simulation assumptions. Use the following updates to TR38.901 as baseline assumption for calibration.
Additional calibration parameters for BS side spatial non-stationarity channel modeling can be found in Table 7.8-8. It is assumed that parameters from Table 7.8-2 is used if unspecified by the additional full calibration parameters in Table 7.8-8.
Table 7.8-8: Simulation assumptions for calibration for BS side spatial non-stationarity
Note: Parameters in [ ] are subject for further check and are intent as tentative values for calibration checks for companies.
Agreement
The following agreement replaces conclusion made in RAN1 #120 regarding starting point for further discussion for calibration.
For new scenarios, and if changes are made to existing scenarios, interested companies to perform near field channel modeling calibration based on the following simulation assumptions. Use the following updates to TR38.901 as baseline assumption for calibration.
Additional calibration parameters for UT side spatial non-stationarity channel modeling can be found in Table 7.8-9. It is assumed that parameters from Table 7.8-2 is used if unspecified by the additional full calibration parameters in Table 7.8-9.
Table 7.8-9: Simulation assumptions for calibration for UT side spatial non-stationarity
Note: Parameters in [ ] are subject for further check and are intent as tentative values for calibration checks for companies.
|