| Literature DB >> 35746306 |
Jingyuan Qian1, Yating Wu1, Asad Saleem2, Guoxin Zheng1.
Abstract
An important and typical scenario of radio propagation in a railway or subway tunnel environment is the cascaded straight and curved tunnel. In this paper, we propose a joint path loss model for cascaded tunnels at 3.5 GHz and 5.6 GHz frequency bands. By combining the waveguide mode theory and the method of shooting and bouncing ray (SBR), it is found that the curvature of tunnels introduces an extra loss in the far-field region, which can be modeled as a linear function of the propagation distance of the signal in the curved tunnel. The channel of the cascaded straight and curved tunnel is thus characterized using the extra loss coefficient (ELC). Based on the ray-tracing (RT) method, an empirical formula between ELC and the radius of the curvature is provided for 3.5 GHz and 5.6 GHz, respectively. Finally, the accuracy of the proposed model is verified by measurement and simulation results. It is shown that the proposed model can predict path loss in cascaded tunnels with desirable accuracy and low complexity.Entities:
Keywords: extra loss coefficient; ray tracing; shooting and bouncing ray method; subway tunnel; waveguide effect
Year: 2022 PMID: 35746306 PMCID: PMC9230506 DOI: 10.3390/s22124524
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sensors (Basel) ISSN: 1424-8220 Impact factor: 3.847
State-of-the-art related works on path-loss models in tunnel environments.
| Type | Methods | Models | Pros and Cons | Ref. |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Straight | Fit measurement results | FI model | Low complexity | [ |
| Superpose multiple modes in both near and far region | Multimode model | High accuracy | [ | |
| Calculate Per-ray cone angle | Improved RT model | High accuracy | [ | |
| Extract rectangular waveguide model using VPE | Mixed model based on | Reduced complexity | [ | |
| Curved | Introduce a break point | Improved CI model | High accuracy | [ |
| Divide propagation region into LOS and NLOS | Two-slope model | Realistic scenario | [ | |
| Define the break point between two waveguiding effects | Improved FI model with break point | High accuracy | [ | |
| Estimate the main effects of the curvature on multimode | Mixed model based on waveguide and RT | Low complexity | [ | |
| Combine RT method with neural network | Improved RT model | High applicability | [ | |
| Cascaded | Fit measurement results | CI model | Low complexity | [ |
| Reconstruct a high-precision 3D model of measurement tunnel | RT model | High accuracy | [ | |
| Divide space into segments to solve stability constraint | Improved FDTD | High accuracy | [ |
Figure 1Cascaded tunnel and antenna locations.
Figure 2Schematic diagram of reflection in cascaded tunnel.
Figure 3Schematic diagram of reflection in cascaded tunnel.
Figure 4The relationship between incident angle and reflection coefficient.
Figure 5The measurement environment.
Figure 6Transmitting and receiving antennas setting (a) The cross-section of the measurement tunnel; (b) the positions of Tx and Rx.
Figure 7The configuration of the measurement system.
Figure 8The 3D model of the straight tunnel.
Material parameters after calibration.
| Material | Roughness (m) | Conductivity (S/m) | Permittivity | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Tunnel Wall | Concrete | 0.075 | 0.09 (3.5 GHz)/0.15 (5.6 GHz) | 5.31 |
| Rail | Metal | - | 107 | 5.31 |
Figure 9Comparison of path-loss results between measurement and RT simulation (a) 3.5 GHz (b) 5.6 GHz.
Path-loss model parameters at 3.5 GHz and 5.6 GHz bands.
|
|
|
| |
|---|---|---|---|
| 3.5 GHz Measurement | 1.444 | 36.217 | 2.506 |
| 3.5 GHz RT simulation | 1.461 | 35.437 | 2.970 |
| 5.6 GHz Measurement | 1.394 | 43.938 | 3.393 |
| 5.6 GHz RT simulation | 1.405 | 44.021 | 3.252 |
Figure 10The model and antennas setting (a) Cascaded tunnel; (b) straight tunnel.
BP and d at 3.5 GHz and 5.6 GHz bands.
| BP (m) | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 3.5 | 300 | 350 | 400 | 261 |
| 5.6 | 450 | 500 | 550 | 417 |
Figure 11(a) Comparison of path loss between straight tunnel and cascaded tunnel; (b) EL fitted by direct proportional function.
ELC and average RMSE for different radii of curvatures.
| ELC (dB/100 m) | Average RMSE (dB) | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 3.5 | 300 | 7.18 | 7.03 | 7.17 | 1.66 |
| 3.5 | 600 | 4.35 | 4.28 | 4.66 | 1.69 |
| 3.5 | 900 | 3.45 | 3.56 | 3.96 | 1.35 |
| 3.5 | 1200 | 3.25 | 3.16 | 3.05 | 1.89 |
| 3.5 | 1500 | 2.82 | 2.62 | 2.65 | 1.95 |
| 5.6 | 300 | 7.22 | 7.35 | 7.15 | 1.81 |
| 5.6 | 600 | 4.56 | 5.32 | 4.55 | 2.17 |
| 5.6 | 900 | 4.12 | 4.15 | 3.89 | 1.72 |
| 5.6 | 1200 | 3.09 | 3.16 | 3.26 | 1.58 |
| 5.6 | 1500 | 2.82 | 2.99 | 2.77 | 1.55 |
Figure 12The relationship between ELC and R at 3.5 GHz and 5.6 GHz.
Path-loss model parameters at 3.5 GHz and 5.6 GHz bands.
|
|
| RMSE (dB) | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 3.5 | 1.75 | 1618 | 0.104 |
| 5.6 | 1.97 | 1612 | 0.230 |
Calculation of ELC using empirical formula.
| ELC (dB/100 m) | ||
|---|---|---|
| 3.5 | 500 | 5.00 |
| 3.5 | 1000 | 3.38 |
| 5.6 | 500 | 5.20 |
| 5.6 | 1000 | 3.58 |
Figure 13The comparison between the RT model in [32] and the proposed model at 3.5 GHz. (a) R = 500 m; (b) R = 1000 m.
Figure 14The comparison between the RT model in [32] and the proposed model at 5.6 GHz. (a) R = 500 m; (b) R = 1000 m.