PROGRESS REPORT on CHANNEL MODEL DOCUMENT Al Wieczorek 16 Sept. 2004

1. PROGRESS REPORT on CHANNEL MODEL DOCUMENT Al Wieczorek 16 Sept. 2004

2. Channel Model Document Completion Plan • Primary objective is to prepare in the CG v6 draft revision to Channel Model v5 document for adoption at the Nov. plenary meeting. CM document purpose is to serve as a reasonable technology evaluation aid, not necessarily the most realistic. • Additional objective is to prepare draft Evaluation document text to contribute to the Nov. plenary meeting for the following sections; 6.2 Channel models for Phase 1 of the Simulations 9 Channel Modeling and 11 Link Budget Test Environment. • Two correspondence group (CG) conference call meetings (and, possibly more) will be held 10/8 and 10/29 (tentatively) to progress the work; • Agenda to consist of open items from this meeting and all reflector contributions delivered by 1 week prior to the calls. Call attendees are expected to have read and understood all of these. • Use Channel Models v5 document (04/66r1) to be added to the drop box as point of departure. • Review and decide upon contributions.

3. v6 Call Agenda Items • Six items listed in document C802.20-04/61 (copied in slide 11) with consideration of contributions C802.20-04/70, C802.20-04/75, C802.20-04/76 and C802.20-04/77, and comments received during AW presentation (attached herein). • Content for 3 Evaluation document sections (see slide 10 herein) • Any other timely relevant contribution.

4. Comments Received During 9/15/04 Channel Model Presentation • Need and desire to de-randomize parameters (Huo) facilitates comparisons and fall back to ITU-R SISO models, but (per -04/75) conflicts with ITU-R Rec. M.1225 ANNEX 2 §1.1(Guo). If fixed parameters approach is adopted, then consider Table 2.1 parameter value changes proposed in C802.20-04/70 (Huo), else skip. • Case 4 (Typical Urban) in Table 2.1 should be deleted (Ragsdale). • It was proposed that a mix of models be used for Phase 1 simulations (see Eval. Document 9.1). Because some thought the mixed method seemed to be an unnecessary complication there was not a consensus on the need to use a mixed method. If a mixed method is pursued there is a need for a specific mix. • Need to define Phase 1 evaluation and calibration simulation model(s), and parameter values to use (all) • There is a need to capture references to contributions incorporated during the evolution of revisions. (e.g.- 3GPP2 SCM-134 v6.0) • Need nomenclature consistency between Requirements, Evaluation and Channel Model documents

5. ATTACHMENT

6. Channel Models Al Wieczorek for Qiang Guo 15 September 2004

7. v5 changes from v4 • 2.4 Added intro text • 2.5.2 Added AS = 25 degrees • 2.6.3 Added AS = 104 degrees • 2.7.2 Added table 2.2 • 3.1 Enhanced matrix description text • 3.3 Added indoor pico-cell and associated assumptions • 3.4 Supplemented descriptive text

8. Requirements Document 4.2.2 Performance under Mobility The system shall work in dense urban, suburban, rural outdoor-indoor, pedestrian and vehicular environments and the relevant channel models shall be applicable

9. Channel Model v5 Document 2.4 MBWA Channel Environments • Suburban macro-cell • Urban macro-cell • Urban micro-cell • Indoor pico-cell

10. Evaluation Document v11 6.1 Channel models for Phase 1 of the simulations • Current Recommendation is to use suburban macro, 3 Km/h pedestrian B and 120Km/h Vehicular B models. 9 Channel Models <Input from Traffic and Channel Models Correspondence Group> 11 Link Budget - Test Environment table Suburban/urban macro-cell, micro-cell, indoor pico-cell

11. Output from the Joint 802.20 Channel Models and Evaluation Criteria AHG 05/13/2004: (from 802.20-04/61) • 1) Link-system interface: • Use random phase in the link channel model; • Use AOA/AOD as random phase to do the link/system simulation; • 2) Simplify the SCM in order to make link curves and link-system interface (LSI) approach feasible; • 3) Agree upon the table of model parameters which comply with ITU models; • 4) Other alternative - the procedure to make sure that SCM-MIMO model collapse to ITU SISO model; • 5) Channel mix needs to be addressed; • 6) Investigate the necessity of additional power delay profile randomness across all users;

12. Output from the Joint 802.20 Channel Models and Evaluation Criteria AHG 05/13/2004: (from 802.20-04/61) • 1) Link-system interface: • Use random phase in the link channel model; • Use AOA/AOD as random phase to do the link/system simulation; • 2) Simplify the SCM in order to make link curves and link-system interface (LSI) approach feasible; • 3) Agree upon the table of model parameters which comply with ITU models; • 4) Other alternative - the procedure to make sure that SCM-MIMO model collapse to ITU SISO model; • 5) Channel mix needs to be addressed; • 6) Investigate the necessity of additional power delay profile randomness across all users;

13. Channel Models (from 802.20-04/74) • Joint 802.20 Channel Models and Evaluation Criteria AHG (05/13/2004) • Link-system interface: • Use random phase in the link channel model • Use actual AoA/AoD in the link/system simulations • Simplify the SCM in order to make link curves and link-system interface (LSI) approach feasible • Agree upon the table of model parameters which comply with ITU models • Other alternative - the procedure to make sure that SCM-MIMO model collapses to ITU SISO model • Channel mix issue needs to be addressed; • Investigate the necessity of additional power delay profile randomness across all users