A 3D Human Body Blockage Model for Outdoor
Millimeter-Wave Cellular Communication

arXiv:1710.08147v1 [] 23 Oct 2017

Bin Hana , Longbao Wangb , Hans D. Schottena
a

University of Kaiserslautern
Institute for Wireless Communication and Navigation
67663 Kaiserslautern, Germany
b
HUAWEI R&D Center
No. 2222, Xin Jin Qiao Road, Pudong, Shanghai, China

Abstract
Blocking is one of the most important challenges in exploiting millimeterwave for fifth-generation (5G) cellular communication systems. Compared
to blockages caused by buildings or terrains, human body blockage exhibits
a higher complexity due to the mobility and dynamic statistics of humans.
To support development of outdoor millimeter-wave cellular systems, in this
paper we present a novel 3D physical model of human body blockage. Based
on the proposed model, the impact of human body blockage on frame-based
data transmission is discussed, with respect to the system specifications and
environment conditions.
Keywords: Millimeter-Wave, Channel Modeling, Line-of-Sight, Human
Body Blockage, 5G
1. Introduction
The demand of human society for data traffic has been explosively growing since decades. Beginning with 2.4 kpbs in the first generation (1G)
systems in 1980s, the data rate of wireless technologies has increased to several Gbps in the current Long Term Evolution Advanced (LTE-A) systems.
Correspondingly, the exploited bandwidth has also increased from 30 kHz
to 20 MHz. In future, the fifth generation (5G) technologies on horizon are
expected to provide over 50 Gbps data rate with new bands up to 60 GHz
by the year of 2020 [1, 2]. To quench such a thirst of bandwidth, the interest
Email addresses: binhan@eit.uni-kl.de (Bin Han), wanglongbao@huawei.com
(Longbao Wang), schotten@eit.uni-kl.de (Hans D. Schotten)
Preprint submitted to Physical Communication

October 24, 2017

in using millimeter-wave (mmWave) frequencies for cellular communications
has kept rising since the beginning of this decade [3]. Today, mmWave communication is widely considered as an essential part of the upcoming 5G
technologies.
Compared to legacy wireless technologies at lower radio frequencies,
mmWave systems generally suffer from significantly higher path loss and
penetration loss. To compensate such losses, highly directive antenna arrays are now widely considered as essential in mmWave systems, to provide
enough channel budget for a reliable transmission. This results in a significant difference in the signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) between line-of-sight
(LOS) and non-line-of-sight (NLOS) channels, especially in outdoor scenarios, where few reflectors are available near the transmitter and the receiver.
Meanwhile, due to the short wavelength, mmWave transmission can be easily shadowed or blocked by objects of small size, such as human bodies or
vehicles. Therefore, as pointed out by Niu et al. [4] and Andrews et al. [5],
blocking is one of the most important traits of mmWave cellular systems.
Blockages in cellular communications can be generally classified into two
categories, according to the blocking object:
1. macroscopic rigid obstructions such as buildings or terrains;
2. obstacles of intermediate scales (still significantly larger than the wavelength), such as trees, human bodies and vehicles.
Plenty mature models are available for the first class, e.g. the 3rd Generation Partnership Project (3GPP) model for incorporating blockages [6], the
random shape theory model [7], the LOS ball model [8] and the Poisson
line model [9]. However, the efforts in modeling the latter type of blockages, especially human body blockages (HBBs), are still fresh but limited.
It was reported by Collonge et al. [10] that the SNR of mmWave systems
can be reduced by tens of dBs, when the LOS path is blocked by a person either the device user itself or a pedestrian. This penetration loss through
human bodies was afterwards confirmed and further studied by Lu et al.
[11] and Ragagopal et al. [12], known to float from 20 dB to 40 dB. Focusing on the self-blockage events, a 2D blocking model was proposed by Bai
and Heath, Jr. [13], where the impact of elevation angle of transmitter to
receiver is ignored. For pedestrian blockages, Venugopal et al. proposed a
blocking model in scope of indoor wearable device networks, approximating
every human body as a cylinder [14, 15]. A similar geometry model was
applied by Gapeyenko et al. [16] on urban outdoor scenarios, extended with

2

stochastic approaches to model the pedestrian blockage probability as function of transmitter-receiver locations / dimensions and human densities /
dimensions. In [17], the 3GPP provided two different blocking models for
millimeter wave propagation, covering human body and vehicle blockages.
Compared to building and terrain blockages, HBB shows a more complex
characteristic. First, it is more dynamic due to the mobilities of both the user
and the pedestrians. Second, it is sensitive to the pedestrian density, which
can strongly vary between different places or time periods. Furthermore, a
human is short enough to keep a LOS path available over its head, even when
it is standing between the transmitter and the receiver in overlooking view.
This phenomena gives HBB a high dependency on the system deployment,
especially on the height of antenna installation. Yet most current available
models are either two-dimensional [13, 14], or specified to some particular
system deployment [15], or even empirically instead of physically built [17].
Therefore, they cannot fulfill the requirements of flexibly modeling HBB
events in variant outdoor scenarios. The statistic geometry model in [16]
has provided a satisfying characterization of pedestrian blockage probability
in outdoor scenarios, given a substantial analysis on the physical channel.
Nevertheless, it is still available for further improvement with concerns about
the blockages’ impact on the performance of data transmission.
In this work, we try to propose a novel 3D physical model of HBB to
support modeling mmWave channels, and to study the impact of HBB on
outdoor mmWave communications. The paper is organized as follows. In
Sec.2 we build a simple and general system model for a clear problem description. Then we propose our 3D HBB model in Sec.3, including a self-blockage
model and a pedestrian blockage model. Afterwards, in Sec.4 we set up a
simple single-user sidewalk scenario, and investigate how HBB may impact
the transmission efficiency with respect to the pedestrian density, the user
position and the system specifications. Both analytical discussions and numerical computations are presented. At the end we close this paper with
our conclusions and some outlooks in Sec.5.
2. System Model
2.1. HBB in Outdoor mmWave Communication Scenarios
The HBB phenomenon in outdoor mmWave communication scenarios
can be briefly illustrated by Fig. 1. Multiple mmWave access points (APs)
can be available in a relatively small service area to guarantee the coverage
and service availability. There are people with or without communicational
user equipments (UEs) moving at low velocities in the service area. For
3

convenience, in this paper we use the term users to distinguish the humans
who are carrying UEs from those without UE, which are referred to as
pedestrians. The LOS channel between a UE and an AP can be blocked by
the user itself or a pedestrian. Even when a LOS channel is not blocked, it
may fail to provide a sufficient signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) due to a strong
path loss over long distance between UE and AP. Only LOS channels over
short distances can be deployed for a satisfying high-speed transmission.

Figure 1: High-speed data transmission over millimeter wave can only take place over
unblocked LOS channels with satisfying SNR.

2.2. Blockage-Caused Frame Loss
Most modern cellular communication systems, if not all, use synchronized frame-based transmission protocols. Under such protocols, data are
synchronously transmitted in separated time frames of certain length. In
this work we consider a Time-Division-Duplex (TDD) system, in which the
frames are structured as illustrated in Fig. 2. Each frame consists of three
slots, for downlink (DL) transmission, guarding and uplink (UL) transmission, respectively. Both DL and UL pilots are transmitted in the guard slot
to estimate the channel state information (CSI). Let T1 , T2 and T3 denote the
lengths of a DL transmission slot, of a guard slot and of a UL transmission
slot, respectively, we have the frame length T = T1 + T2 + T3 .
Depending on the channel coherence time and the use case, T1 , T2 and
T3 can be flexibly configured, but generally there is a minimal value for the
length of each slot, known as the transmission time interval (TTI). In legacy
LTE-A systems, this value is 1 ms. Considering the fact that the Doppler
4

Figure 2: HBB causes failures in frame-based transmission. The shadow illustrates the
duration of a human body blockage; the start of the frame loss is highlighted in red lines.

shift increases proportionally to the carrier frequency, mmWave systems
generally suffer from shorter channel coherence time in comparison to LTEA systems, and therefore require shorter delay in transmission and feedback.
Concerning of this, it has been recently discussed and considered by the
3GPP in scope of New Radio (NR) technologies, to employ shortened TTI
down to a short TTI (sTTI) of 2 symbols i.e. 143 µs in the future [18, 19].
Meanwhile, according to the measurements reported in [10], the duration of
a single human body blockage event typically ranges from 0.5 s to 2 s, which
is significantly larger than the standard LTE-A TTI and sTTI. In other
words, a blockage event generally lasts over multiple time frames. Once a
HBB occurs during some time frame i, it can be recognized by the AP after
the UL transmission slot, so that the AP can reallocate its radio resources
for other unblocked UEs in the next frames (i + 1 to i + 3). Meanwhile, the
transmission in frame i is failed, generating no effective throughput. Note
that the HBB may occur in the guard or UL transmission slot, leaving the DL
transmission undisturbed. Nevertheless, due to the failed UL transmission
the AP cannot be reported about the successful DL transmission, and has
to retransmit this DL slot again with the next opportunity. Therefore, each
HBB event leads to a data/resource loss of one time frame.
2.3. Coordinate System
For a convenient spatial description in the rest part of the paper, here
we use the spherical coordinate as illustrated in Fig.3. The position of a UE
D relative to the access point A can be presented by its distance r to A,
and its azimuth and elevation AoA of signal [θ, ϕ].

5

Figure 3: The UE-AP relative position can be presented in spherical coordinates as [θ, ϕ, r].
Note that the x axis here is in the direction from the UE to the user body U , and the z
axis points vertically upward.

3. 3D Human Body Blockage Model
3.1. Self-Blockage
The very practical 2D self-blockage model proposed by Bai and Heath,
Jr. [13] can be briefly illustrated by Fig.4a. The handset is hold in front of
the user at a distance d, and the user’s body is approximated as a flat blocker
of width wU . Both the transmitting and receiving antennas are considered
to be infinitesimally-small with respect to the dimension of human body,
and therefore approximated as point antennas. A horizontal blocking sector
is defined by
θb
,
2
wU
θb = 2 arctan
,
2d

|θ| <

(1)
(2)

where θ is the azimuth AoA of signal. Here, the impact of elevation angle
of the transmitter to the receiver is ignored. This is a reasonable approximation for macro and small cells, where the horizontal distance between the
UE and the base station is generally larger than the vertical distance with
significance. However, for micro cell scenarios, the 2D approximation can
deviate from the actual propagation in 3D space, especially when the UE is
near the access point.
6

For a 3D extension, we assume that each user is hU tall and holding the
handset by hD above the ground, while the access points are installed on
the top of road poles with height of H, as shown in Fig. 4b. In this way, a
vertical blocking sector can be defined as
ϕ > ϕb ,

(3)

ϕb = arctan

d
,
hU − hD

(4)

where ϕ is the elevation AoA of signal. A self-body blockage occurs if and
only if the angle of arrival (AoA) of the signal falls in both the horizontal
and vertical blocking sectors.

(a)

(b)

Figure 4: The (a) horizontal and (b) vertical self-blocking sectors can be defined by the
azimuth and elevation AoAs of signal, respectively.

3.2. Pedestrian Blockage
Pedestrians are usually modeled as 2D circles with certain diameter,
which cause blockages when they intersect the path between the transmitter
and the receiver [14], i.e. their centers fall into a wP wide blocking region,
where wP is the pedestrian diameter, as illustrated in Fig. 5a. Taking the
elevation AoA into account, here we extend this model to a 3D version.
Similar to the approach used in [15], we model each pedestrian as a cylinder
with diameter wP and height hP . Once again, we ignore the dimension
of antennas. As shown in Fig. 5b, it can be calculated that a pedestrian
cannot block the LOS path when its center is horizontally farther than
wP
hP −hD
H−hD × d2D + 2 away from the user, where d2D is the horizontal distance
between the user and the AP.
For simplification here we consider a single-user and micro-cell scenario,
where only one AP is serving the cell and the only user is located horizontally
d2D away from the AP. Pedestrians nearby are uniformly distributed in
7

(a)

(b)
Figure 5: Given the UE position relative to the AP, we can define the pedestrian blockage
region considering (a) the horizontal path and (b) the vertical path.

the area and moving at low speeds (< 3 km/h) in independently binary
uniformly distributed directions. Under these conditions we can assert that
the amount of pedestrian blockages K arriving in a certain time interval ∆t
is Poisson distributed:
P (K = k, ∆t) =

(λ∆t)k e−λ∆t
,
k!

(5)

where λ is the expectation of K. Under the low mobility assumption, we
can approximately consider d2D as constant when t is small enough. As
8

the positions of all pedestrians are independent and identically distributed
(i.i.d.), we have


hP − hD
wP
λ = λ0
d2D +
wP ,
(6)
H − hD
2
where λ0 is the average number of pedestrian arrivals in unit time and unit
area in the cell. To briefly investigate the pedestrian blockage rate in the
outdoor scenario, we set ∆t = 0.1 s, and the geometric parameters to realistic values as listed in Tab. 1. Note that we set wU = wP and hU = hP ,
considering a common dimension of human bodies. But the parameters for
user and pedestrians are distinguished from each other, in order to provide
a flexibility for potential further analyses such as vehicle blockage or vehicle
communication devices. We defined three different reference pedestrian scenarios, in which λ0 = 0.01 m−2 s−1 (silent), 0.3 m−2 s−1 (busy) and 2 m−2 s−1
(crowded), as well as three different reference 2D distances d2D = 15 m (far),
5 m (medium) and 1 m (close). The probability mass function (PMF) of K
under different reference pedestrian scenarios and user distances can be calculated according to (5) and (6), as shown in Fig. 6a. It can be seen that the
pedestrian blockage has a considerable impact under the busy and crowded
scenarios, and the chance of K ≥ 3 within ∆t = 0.1 s is negligible. For
comparison we also computed the PMF with the traditional 2D pedestrian
blockage model, the result is presented in Fig.6b. Under all scenarios and at
all distances, our 3D model gives a lower probability of pedestrian blockage
than the 2D model, which reveals a higher potential of outdoor deployment
of mmWave communication than expected before.
Table 1: Reference parameters in the studied outdoor scenario

Parameter
Value (m)

wU
0.3

hU
1.7

d
0.15

hD
1.5

hP
1.7

wP
0.3

H
3

The duration of a blockage depends on speeds and positions of both
the user and the blocker. For simplification here we model it as uniformly
distributed in the interval [τmin , τmax ].
4. Impact of Human Body Blockage on Transmission Efficiency
4.1. Sidewalk Scenario: a Case Study
To provide a rapid, intuitive and deep understanding in the impact of
HBB on mmWave communication systems, simulations were carried out under a simplified use scenario. For the HBB problem, a multi-user case can be
9

0.12
Crowded−close
Crowded−medium
Crowded−far
Busy−close
Busy−medium
Busy−far
Silent−close
Silent−medium
Silent−far

0.1

P(K=k)

0.08
0.06
0.04
0.02
0

1

2

3

4

5

6

k

(a)
0.4
Crowded−close
Crowded−medium
Crowded−far
Busy−close
Busy−medium
Busy−far
Silent−close
Silent−medium
Silent−far

0.35
0.3
P(K=k)

0.25
0.2
0.15
0.1
0.05
0

1

2

3

4

5

6

k

(b)
Figure 6: The probability mass function of arriving blocking pedestrians in a T = 0.1 s
time window under different reference scenarios and distances, calculated with (a) our 3D
pedestrian blockage model and (b) the 2D pedestrian blockage model.

decomposed into several individual single-user multi-blocker cases, as long
as the users have the same geometries as pedestrians. Hence, for simplification we investigated the case with a single user moving at a constant
speed one-directionally along the middle axis of sidewalk, as illustrated in
Fig. 7. It can be seen that the self-blockage occurs only once, but lasts
until the user leaves the cell, which is deterministic and easy to forecast
through tracking. So first we focus on the pedestrian blockage. Given a
frame i in which the user is located at [θi , ϕi ], the probability that at least

10

one pedestrian blockage arrives in this frame can be calculated by
Pi =
=
=

∞
X

k=1
∞
X

k=1
∞
X
k=1

P (Ki = k, T )
P (K = k, T |d2D = (H − hD ) tan ϕi )
(λi T )k e−λi T
,
k!

where λi = λ0 ((hP − hD ) tan ϕi +

(7)

wP
2 )wP .

Figure 7: Top-view of the simplified single-user sidewalk scenario. The UE moves through
the L × D cell area, the self-blocking region is illustrated with shadow.

Taking the uniformly distributed random duration of each blockage into
account, the probability that no pedestrian blockage is present in a frame i
is that
P̆i = (1 − Pi )

i−1
Y

∞
X

P (Kj = k)

k=0
j=i−⌈ τmax
T ⌉



(i − j)T − τmin
τmax − τmin

k

.

(8)

Now take the self-blockage into account. We denote the first frame at
the cell entrance as i = 0, the last frame before the self-blocking region
entrance as i = M − 1, and neglect the user movement during a frame for
approximation. The UE position in an arbitrary frame i can be presented
by
D
,
L − 2viT
p
D 2 /4 + (L/2 − viT )2
.
ϕi = arctan
H − hD
θi = arctan

11

(9)
(10)

4.2. Impacts of Pedestrian Scenario and Frame Length
For a brief evaluation we took the geometric parameter values in Tab.1.
We also set L = 15 m, D = 2 m and v = 3 km/h. Under this configuration,
the user enters its self-blocking region at [θ = 26.38◦ , ϕ = 36.87◦ ], and M
can be calculated for different values of frame length T :


L + D cot 26.38◦
M=
.
(11)
2vT
Thus, according to (7), the blockage arrival probability of the ith frame
Pi is a function of T and λ0 . We computed Pi for the three reference
pedestrian scenarios we defined in Sec. 3.2, the results are depicted in Fig.
8. A significant increase of the Pi can be observed when λ0 or T grows.
Additionally, this increase is more critical when the UE is relatively far
from the AP, in comparison to the case that the UE is near the AP.
As the next step, according to [10] we set τmin = 0.5 s and τmax = 2 s.
Thus, the probability of blockage-free in the ith frame P̆i can also be computed with (8) as a function of T and λ0 . Results under reference pedestrian
scenarios are shown in Fig. 9. Once again, a significant dependency on λ0
can also be observed by P̆i . The frame blockage-free rate dramatically decreases when the pedestrian density grows. However, differing from the case
of Pi , the frame length T shows only a negligible impact on P̆i . This can be
explained by the memorability of blockage events. As (8) shows, P̆i relies
on the historical blockage arrival status in the past period of τmax instead
of only the current frame. As τmax ≫ T and τmax ≫ ∆T , there is

m  τ
lτ
max
max
≃
,
(12)
T
T + ∆T
and the impact of ∆T is hence canceled.
For a more intuitive and clearer evaluation we computed the HBB loss
in dB. The pedestrian blockage loss was obtained from the expected frame
transmission failure rate, and the self-blockage loss was obtained from the
surface ratio of self-blocking region to the entire cell area. The results for
different reference scenarios are listed in Tab. 2.
So far, a longer frame length leads to a higher blockage arrival probability, i.e. frame transmission failure rate. And once a frame fails, the data
loss is also more with a longer frame length. Hence, the HBB-caused data
loss increases with the frame length. Nevertheless, a longer frame can also
benefit in some specific cases. For instance, if the system is designed for
users to download large files from the cloud server, the data will mainly flow
12

silent

−5

x 10
16
14

Frame length = 0.5 ms
1 ms
5 ms
10 ms
50 ms

4.5
4
Blockage rate

Blockage rate

12

busy

−3

x 10
5

Frame length = 0.5 ms
1 ms
5 ms
10 ms
50 ms

10
8
6

3.5
3
2.5
2
1.5

4

1

2
0

0.5
2

4

6
Time / s

8

10

0

2

4

(a)

6
Time / s

8

10

(b)
crowded
Frame length = 0.5 ms
1 ms
5 ms
10 ms
50 ms

0.03

Blockage rate

0.025
0.02
0.015
0.01
0.005

0

2

4

6
Time / s

8

10

(c)
Figure 8: The probability of blockage arrival in each frame under different frame lengths
and different reference pedestrian scenarios: (a) silent, (b) busy and (c) crowded. Note
that the total number of frames M varies with the frame length T , although the total time
remains almost the same. The asymmetry of the curves are caused by the self-blockage.

in DL, while only a short UL transmission slot is necessary to send reports.
In this case, the expectation of overall effective DL transmission time during
the stay of UE in the cell is of our interest, which can be calculated as
t̄data = M

M
−1
X

P̆i T1 ,

(13)

i=0

which is proportional to T1 . If we fix T2 and T3 at a certain value e.g.
one sTTI, so that the increase in T completely contributes to T1 , which
helps to increase t̄data . Meanwhile, P̆ decreases with increasing T , which
compensates this gain. To investigate the joint impact, we set T2 = T3 =
0.1 ms, and computed t̄data for T1 ∈ [0.3 ms, 49.8 ms], i.e. T ∈ [0.5 ms, 50 ms].
Three reference pedestrian scenarios were taken, along with two other cases,
13

busy

silent
0.999
0.96
Successful transmission rate

Successful transmission rate

0.9985
0.998
0.9975
0.997
0.9965
Frame length = 0.5 ms
1 ms
5 ms
10 ms
50 ms

0.996
0.9955
0.995
0

2

4

6
Time / s

8

0.94

0.92

0.9

Frame length = 0.5 ms
1 ms
5 ms
10 ms
50 ms

0.88

10

0

2

4

(a)

6
Time / s

8

10

(b)
crowded
0.8

Successful transmission rate

0.75
0.7
0.65
0.6
0.55
0.5

Frame length = 0.5 ms
1 ms
5 ms
10 ms
50 ms

0.45
0.4
0.35
0

2

4

6
Time / s

8

10

(c)
Figure 9: The blockage-free probability in each frame under different frame lengths and
different reference pedestrian scenarios: (a) silent, (b) busy and (c) crowded. Note that
the total number of frames M varies with the frame length T , although the total time
remains almost the same. The asymmetry of the curves are caused by the self-blockage.

where
1. no pedestrian exists;
2. all types of HBB are ignored.
The results are depicted in Fig. 10.
Generally, t̄ strictly increases with T , which means that the gain in T1
overcomes the loss in P̆ in all scenarios. This increase slows down as T
grows. Comparing the scenarios, it can be seen that HBB can be almost
ignored in the silent scenario, but very critical in crowded scenario. Also we
can assert that the self-blockage plays an important role, even more critical
than the pedestrian blockages. Additionally, it worths to note that only
HBB-caused loss is discussed here. In practice, a long frame length can also
14

Table 2: HBB loss in dB under different reference scenarios

Pedestrian blockage loss Self-blockage loss HBB loss
Silent
0.021
3.974
Busy
0.630
3.953
4.583
Crowded
9.304
13.257
*: Here we consider the gross HBB loss of all transmission slots,
including UL, DL and guarding interval slots.

*

Effective transmission time

18
crowded
busy
silent
no pedestrian
no HBB

16
14
12
10
8
6
4
0.5

5

10

50
Frame length / ms

Figure 10: Expected effective DL transmission time as function of frame length

lead to an outdated CSI estimation, and therefore a system mismatch. This
may generate extra transmission loss, which may overwhelm the gain in t̄.
Hence, the channel fast fading has to be taken into account to optimize T .
4.3. Impact of Access Point Height
Besides the pedestrian scenario and time frame specification, the deployment of access points, especially the AP height H, also plays a important
role in the HBB phenomenon. First, the self-blocking region is jointly set
by (1) and (3). For any given θ, changing H leads to a change of φ, and
may hence influence the self-blockage state. Second, from (5) and (6) we
know that increasing H will decrease the probability of pedestrian blockage
arrival in each frame.
To demonstrate these effects, we calculated Pi , P̆i and t̄ with different
values of H from 2 m to 5 m. The pedestrian scenario was set to busy, frame
length T = 5 ms, DL transmission slot length T1 = 4.8 ms, and the other
geometric parameters as listed in Tab. 1. The results are shown in Fig. 11.
15

−3

x 10

H=2m
2.5 m
3m
3.5 m
4m
4.5 m
5m

1.4

Blockage arrival probability

1.2
1
0.8
0.6

1

0.95

Blockage−free probability

1.6

0.4

0.85

0.8
H=2m
2.5 m
3m
3.5 m
4m
4.5 m
5m

0.75

0.7

0.2
0
0

0.9

2

4

6
Time / s

8

0.65
0

10

Effective DL transmission time / s

(a) Blockage arrival probability

2

4

6
Time / s

8

10

(b) Blockage-freel probability

11
10.5
10
9.5
9
8.5
8
2

2.5

3
3.5
4
Access point height / m

4.5

5

(c) Effective DL transmission time
Figure 11: Impact of the AP height H on HBB in frame-based transmission. In (a) and
(b), the varying time range of different curves is caused by different self-blocking regions.

It can be significantly observed in Figs. 11a and 11b that the selfblocking region varies with H. For H ≤ 3 m, this region is determined
by the vertical self-blocking sector; for H ≥ 3.5 m, it is determined by the
horizontal self-blocking sector. Generally, a large H is beneficial for avoiding
HBB. Nevertheless, it also leads to a higher distance between AP and UE,
which implies a stronger path loss, which must be considered in real system
design.
4.4. Impact of Human Body Size
Furthermore, the size of human bodies, including both the user and the
pedestrians, also have impacts on the blocking range and blockage loss. To
16

investigate these effects, we repeated the simulation of sidewalk scenario
with varying human-body geometrical parameters. We take the values of
H = 3 m, d = 0.15 m, L = 15 m, D = 2 m, v = 3 km/h, T1 = 4.8 ms and
T = 5 ms. We consider a homogeneous size of human bodies independent of
the role (user or pedestrian) so that we tested wU = wP in the range from
0.3 m to 0.5 m, and hU = hP in the range from 1.5 m to 1.9 m. The device
height is considered as proportional to the user height so that hD = 1.5
1.7 hU .
As the simulation results in Fig. 12 shows, the HBB loss generally raises
with increasing height and width of human bodies.
5. Conclusion and Outlooks
In this paper, we have proposed a novel 3D physical model of human
body blockage in outdoor mmWave communications. Compared to traditional models, our model takes the vertical drop between AP and UE into
account, and gives different results in the behaviors of HBB phenomena,
including self-blockage and pedestrian blockage. Through case studies in a
simplified single-user sidewalk downlink scenario, we have discussed the impacts of pedestrian density, frame length and access point height on the LOS
transmission characteristics. Numerical computations have been conducted
under different configurations, showing quantitative results.
For future work of ours and any other interested peers, there are still
plenty of issues remaining open on this topic. First, more complex deployment scenario with multiple UEs and APs should be studied, in order to
investigate the potential of practical system implementation. Second, the
LOS channel availability should be analyzed in combination with path loss
and channel fading, to obtain the overall mmWave channel quality. Furthermore, for future 5G mmWave cellular systems, our research has implied
a potential of real-time system optimization with respect to the pedestrian
density, which also worths further research.
References
References
[1] A. Gupta, R. K. Jha, A Survey of 5G Network: Architecture and
Emerging Technologies, IEEE Access 3 (2015) 1206–1232.
[2] D. Soldani, A. Manzalini, Horizon 2020 and Beyond: on the 5G Operating System for a True Digital Society, IEEE Vehicular Technology
Magazine 10 (2015) 32–42.
17

1

0.012
hp = 1.5 m, wp = 0.3 m
hp = 1.5 m, wp = 0.4 m
hp = 1.5 m, wp = 0.5 m

0.95

h = 1.6 m, w = 0.3 m

0.01

p

p

hp = 1.6 m, wp = 0.4 m
hp = 1.6 m, wp = 0.5 m
hp = 1.7 m, wp = 0.3 m
p

p

hp = 1.7 m, wp = 0.5 m

Blockage−free probability

Blockage arrival probability

0.9

h = 1.7 m, w = 0.4 m

0.008

hp = 1.8 m, wp = 0.3 m
hp = 1.8 m, wp = 0.4 m
h = 1.8 m, w = 0.5 m
p

0.006

p

hp = 1.9 m, wp = 0.3 m
hp = 1.9 m, wp = 0.4 m
hp = 1.9 m, wp = 0.5 m

h = 1.5 m, w = 0.3 m
p

p

hp = 1.5 m, wp = 0.4 m

0.85

hp = 1.5 m, wp = 0.5 m
hp = 1.6 m, wp = 0.3 m
h = 1.6 m, w = 0.4 m
p

0.8

p

hp = 1.6 m, wp = 0.5 m
hp = 1.7 m, wp = 0.3 m

0.004

hp = 1.7 m, wp = 0.4 m
h = 1.7 m, w = 0.5 m

0.75

p

p

hp = 1.8 m, wp = 0.3 m
hp = 1.8 m, wp = 0.4 m
0.002

hp = 1.8 m, wp = 0.5 m

0.7

h = 1.9 m, w = 0.3 m
p

p

hp = 1.9 m, wp = 0.4 m
hp = 1.9 m, wp = 0.5 m
0
0

2

4

6
Time / s

8

10

0.65
0

12

(a) Blockage arrival probability

2

4

6
Time / s

8

10

(b) Blockage-freel probability

(c) Effective DL transmission time
Figure 12: Impact of the human-body size on HBB in frame-based transmission. In (a)
and (b), the varying time range of different curves is caused by different self-blocking
regions.

[3] Z. Pi, F. Khan, An Introduction to Millimeter-Wave Mobile Broadband
Systems, IEEE Communications Magazine 49 (2011).
[4] Y. Niu, Y. Li, D. Jin, L. Su, A. V. Vasilakos, A Survey of Millimeter
Wave Communications (mmWave) for 5G: Opportunities and Challenges, Wireless Networks 21 (2015) 2657–2676.
18

[5] J. G. Andrews, T. Bai, M. N. Kulkarni, A. Alkhateeb, A. K. Gupta,
R. W. Heath, Modeling and Analyzing Millimeter Wave Cellular Systems, IEEE Transactions on Communications 65 (2017) 403–430.
[6] Further Advancements for E-UTRA Physical Layer Aspects (Release
9), Technical Report TR 36.814, Third Generation Partnership Project
(3GPP), 2017.
[7] M. Haenggi, The Mean Interference-to-Signal Ratio and Its Key Role
in Cellular and Amorphous Networks, IEEE Wireless Communications
Letters 3 (2014) 597–600.
[8] T. Bai, R. W. Heath, Coverage and Rate Analysis for Millimeter-Wave
Cellular Networks, IEEE Transactions on Wireless Communications 14
(2015) 1100–1114.
[9] F. Baccelli, X. Zhang, A Correlated Shadowing Model for Urban Wireless Networks, in: 2015 IEEE Conference on Computer Communications (INFOCOM), IEEE, pp. 801–809.
[10] S. Collonge, G. Zaharia, G. E. Zein, Influence of the Human Activity
on Wide-Band Characteristics of the 60 GHz Indoor Radio Channel,
IEEE Transactions on Wireless Communications 3 (2004) 2396–2406.
[11] J. S. Lu, D. Steinbach, P. Cabrol, P. Pietraski, Modeling Human Blockers in Millimeter Wave Radio Links, ZTE Communications 10 (2012)
23–28.
[12] S. Rajagopal, S. Abu-Surra, M. Malmirchegini, Channel Feasibility
for Outdoor Non-Line-of-Sight mmWave Mobile Communication, in:
, 2012 IEEE Vehicular Technology Conference (VTC Fall), IEEE, pp.
1–6.
[13] T. Bai, R. W. Heath, Analysis of Self-Body Blocking Effects in Millimeter Wave Cellular Networks, in: 48th Asilomar Conference on Signals,
Systems and Computers, IEEE, pp. 1921–1925.
[14] K. Venugopal, M. C. Valenti, R. W. Heath, Analysis of Millimeter Wave
Networked Wearables in Crowded Environments, in: 49th Asilomar
Conference on Signals, Systems and Computers, IEEE, pp. 872–876.
[15] K. Venugopal, R. W. Heath, Millimeter Wave Networked Wearables in
Dense Indoor Environments, IEEE Access 4 (2016) 1205–1221.
19

[16] M. Gapeyenko, A. Samuylov, M. Gerasimenko, D. Moltchanov,
S. Singh, E. Aryafar, S.-p. Yeh, N. Himayat, S. Andreev, Y. Koucheryavy, Analysis of Human-Body Blockage in Urban Millimeter-Wave
Cellular Communications, in: 2016 IEEE International Conference on
Communications (ICC), IEEE, pp. 1–7.
[17] Study on Channel Model for Frequency Spectrum above 6 GHz (Release 14), Technical Report TR 38.900, Third Generation Partnership
Project (3GPP), 2017.
[18] Huawei’s contribution to 3GPP TSG RAN WG1 Meeting 84, Overview
of Short TTI, Technical Report R1-160291, 2016.
[19] Ericsson’s contribution to 3GPP TSG RAN WG1 Meeting 84, System
Level Evaluation Results for TTI Shortening Techniques, Technical Report R1-161167, 2016.

20

