Evaluation of Angular Dispersion for Various
Propagation Environments in Emerging 5G Systems
Jan M. Kelner, Cezary Ziółkowski, and Bogdan Uljasz
Institute of Telecommunications, Faculty of Electronics, Military University of Technology,
Warsaw, Poland
{jan.kelner, cezary.ziolkowski, bogdan.uljasz}@wat.edu.pl

Abstract—Angular dispersion is the effect of a multi-path
propagation observed in received signals. An assessment of this
phenomenon is particularly important from the viewpoint of
emerging fifth generation (5G) communication systems. In these
systems, using the beam-forming and massive multiple-input
multiple-output antenna arrays are planned. This phenomenon
also has a negative impact on direction finding and older
generation communication systems used in an urban
environment. In this paper, we present the angular dispersion
evaluation for various propagation environments based on
simulation studies. This analysis is carried out for different
environment types defined in the 3GPP standard model for a
selected frequency. In this case, the angular spread is
determinated based on the power angular spectrum. This
parameter is the basis for the influence evaluation of the
propagation environment on the received signal angular
dispersion.
Keywords—angle spread; angular dispersion; multipath
propagation; multi-elliptical propagation model; propagation
environment type; antenna pattern; gain; directional antenna; nonline-of-sight conditions; simulation; milimeter wave.

I. INTRODUCTION
A development direction of emerging wireless systems is to
provide a greater system capacity and transmission bitrate.
Majority of a current third (3G) and fourth generation (4G)
mobile systems [1] and wireless WiFi networks in the IEEE
802.11 b/g standards [2] use ultra high frequency (UHF) bands.
Limited spectral resources in the UHF range are the reason for
the use of higher frequency ranges, including super (SHF) and
extremely high frequency (EHF). In these bands, WiFi in the
IEEE 802.11 n/ac/ad standards [2], fifth generation (5G)
communication systems [3] and Internet of things [4] work or
will operate in the near future.
However, the use of higher frequency ranges, especially
millimeter waves (EHF), has its drawbacks. The main
difficulty associated with their use is a large path loss and small
range of a transmitter (Tx) [5]. Hence, radio networks
operating in these bands have a higher density of nodes/cells
per area unit than networks operating in the UHF. In addition,
tremendously high frequency (THF) and infrared optic ranges
are increasingly used for line-of-sight (LOS) conditions. These
are so-called terahertz [6][7] and free space optics (FSO) [8][9]
communication systems.

A common feature of the EHF and THF ranges is the use of
geometric optics principles [10] in propagation phenomena
modeling. The wave propagation modeling for the THF and
optical frequency ranges is relatively simple, as it mainly
concerns LOS conditions. For the EHF, the millimeter wave
propagation can also occur under non-LOS (NLOS) conditions.
In this case, the additional problem is a multipath propagation
phenomenon. This is associated with dispersions in time and
angle domains that can be observe in a received signal. For
modeling these phenomena, geometry-based propagation
models are used, e.g., [11]. Geometric optics is the basis of
these models.
The evaluation of the angular dispersion of the received
signals consists in determining a distribution of angle of arrival
angle (AOA) at surroundings of a receiver (Rx). In this case,
the analysis reduces to the evaluation of propagation path
trajectories in the presence of scatterers. Appropriate geometric
structures are used to map scatterer positions on the plane (2D)
or in space (3D). Shapes of scattering areas, their location in
relation to the Tx and Rx positions, and a density distribution
of the scatterers are the criteria that differentiate individual
models.
Currently, 3D models are more popular, e.g., [11]. They
provide to evaluate the angular dispersion in the azimuth and
elevation planes. However, results presented in a literature,
e.g., [12][13], show unequivocally that the phenomenon of the
angular dispersion is more visible in the azimuth plane. In the
elevation plane, a parameter defining this dispersion, i.e., rms
angle spread (AS), is usually equal to a few degrees. For this
reason, the assessment of the angular dispersion presented in
this paper focuses only on the azimuth plane.
The previous wireless systems were based mainly on
omnidirectional or sectorial antenna systems. Diversification of
radio resources also in the field of space has forced the use of
spatial multiplexing techniques such as multiple-input
multiple-output (MIMO) [14]. In the emerging 5G systems,
more complex antenna techniques are planned to use [3], e.g.,
wideband beamforming [15], massive-MIMO [16], active
phased array antenna (APAA), and massive APAA [17]. In
practical terms, a single beam can be modeled as a narrowbeam directional antenna. In the future communication
systems, in addition to antenna arrays, the millimeter waves
also enforces the use of singular directional antennas, which
are characterized by low half power beamwidths (HPBWs) and
high gains [5].

Jan M. Kelner, Cezary Ziółkowski, and Bogdan Uljasz,
“Evaluation of angular dispersion for various propagation environments in emerging 5G systems,”
in 2018 22nd International Microwave and Radar Conference (MIKON),
Poznan, Poland, 15–17.05.2018., pp. 1–5.

The purpose of this paper is to evaluate the angular
dispersion for different environment types. This analysis is
carried out for 38-39 GHz, which is planned to use in the
upcoming 5G systems. In the assessment based on simulation
studies, we use the multi-elliptical propagation model (MPM)
[18]. The choice of this model results from two premises.
Firstly, MPM is characterized by the best approximation of
measurement data available in a literature [19]. Secondly,
MDM is one of few models that considers the transmitting and
receiving antenna patterns. As mentioned above, considering
the antenna patterns in the analysis is very important in
modeling the emerging 5G communication systems.
The remainder of this paper is organized as follows. Section
II describes the method of modeling the angular dispersion.
Assumptions for simulation studies and AS assessment for
various propagation environments are presented in Sections III
and IV, respectively. In section V, the summary is shown.
II. ANGULAR DISPERSION MODELING
The basis of MPM is the multi-elliptical structure, which
defines potential locations of the scatterers. In this case, the Tx
and Rx are located in the ellipse foci. This approach was first
proposed by Parsons and Bajwa [20]. A cluster structure of
empirical power delay profiles (PDPs) or spectrum (PDSs) is
the premise for this. Therefore, the basic input data for MPM is
PDP/PDS. The dimensions of the confocal ellipses results from
the delays of the analyzed PDP. The MPM geometry is shown
in Fig. 1.

The angular dispersion can be analyzed in surroundings of
the Rx or at the output of the receiving antenna. In the first
case, we are talking about signal analysis at the so-called
reception point that is independent of the receiving antenna
pattern, but considers the influence of the transmitting antenna
and environment. In practice, we can assume that the receiving
antenna is omnidirectional and isotropic. In the second case,
the analysis concerns the signal at the output of the receiving
antenna or at the Rx input. Then, the signal is already changed
by the receiving antenna pattern.
Analysis of this phenomena in a literature shows that
directional receiving antennas significantly reduce the angular
dispersion. Therefore, the analysis of this phenomenon for
various propagation environments should be carried out at the
reception point, not at the directional Rx antenna output.
However, comparison of ASs for both cases is presented.
III. SIMULATION ASSUMPTIONS
The PDP is basic input data for MPM. This channel
transmission characteristic and rms delay spread (DS) describe
a dispersion in time domain. In many standard models, e.g.,
[13][25], DS is used to classify the propagation environment
types. In the assessment, we use PDPs and DSs defined by the
3GPP standard for the frequency range, 0.5-100 GHz [13].
In simulation studies, we use two normalized PDPs defined
as tapped delay lines (TDLs) for NLOS conditions, i.e., TDL-A
[13, Table 7.7.2-1] and TDL-B [13, Table 7.7.2-2]. Based on
[13, Table 7.7.3-2], we adapt DSs for 39 GHz, which define
different environments: indoor office, urban micro (UMi)
street-canyon, urban macro (UMa), and UMi / UMa outdoorto-indoor (O2I). These DSs are shown in Table I.
TABLE I.

DSS FOR DIFFERENT PROPAGATION SCENARIOS FOR 39 GHZ

Environment Type
Indoor office

UMi street-canyon

Fig. 1. Geometry of MPM.

Delayed scattering components associated with the multielliptical structure are the core of this geometry. In MPM, we
assume additionally the occurrence possibility of a direct path
and local scattering around the receiving antenna. In this case,
the von Mises distribution [21] is used for the local scattering
components. However, for LOS conditions, the Rice factor
determines the power division between the direct path
component and local scattering.
In [19], MPM for omnidirectional antennas is described.
Consideration of the transmitting and receiving antenna
patterns was first presented for the 3D model, called the multiellipsoid model, in [22] and [23], respectively. Its
simplification to the azimuth plane shown in [24][18] is the
basis for evaluating the angular dispersion in this paper.

UMa

UMi / UMa O2I

PDP Type

DS (ns)

Scenario

Short-delay profile
Normal-delay profile
Long-delay profile
Short-delay profile
Normal-delay profile
Long-delay profile
Short-delay profile
Normal-delay profile
Long-delay profile
Normal-delay profile
Long-delay profile

16
18
41
30
61
297
78
249
786
240
616

Sc1
Sc2
Sc3
Sc4
Sc5
Sc6
Sc7
Sc8
Sc9
Sc10
Sc11

Based on [5], the following parameters are used:
HPBWA = 7.8°,
GA = 25 dBi,
and
HPBWB = 49.4°,
GB = 13.3 dBi for narrow-beam (NBA) and wide-beam (WBA)
antennas, respectively.
Due to the varied propagation environment, we assume
various Tx-Rx distances: 50, 100, 200, and 100 m for indoor
office, UMi street-canyon, UMa, and UMi / UMa O2I,
respectively.

Jan M. Kelner, Cezary Ziółkowski, and Bogdan Uljasz,
“Evaluation of angular dispersion for various propagation environments in emerging 5G systems,”
in 2018 22nd International Microwave and Radar Conference (MIKON),
Poznan, Poland, 15–17.05.2018., pp. 1–5.

IV. ASSESSMENT OF ANGLE SPREAD FOR DIFFERENT
PROPAGATION ENVIRONMENTS
The evaluation of the angular dispersion for various
environment types is based on AS, σφ. This measure is defined
as [26]



  

180



180

 180

 R2 f  R  d R  



 180



2

 R f  R  d R  




where φR is AOA and f (φR) is the distribution of AOA.
The estimation methods of the AOA distribution for the
reception point and output of the receiving antenna are
described in [24] and [18], respectively.

Fig. 4. AS versus |αT| for UMi street-canyon and NBA.

The AS changes at the reception point versus the direction,
αT, of the selective transmitting antenna are shown in Figs. 2-9
for the analyzed environment types and two types of antennas,
respectively. In all cases, we assume αR = 0.

Fig. 5. AS versus |αT| for UMi street-canyon and WBA.

Fig. 2. AS versus |αT| for indoor office and NBA.

Fig. 6. AS versus |αT| for UMa and NBA.

Fig. 3. AS versus |αT| for indoor office and WBA.

Fig. 7. AS versus |αT| for UMa and WBA.

Jan M. Kelner, Cezary Ziółkowski, and Bogdan Uljasz,
“Evaluation of angular dispersion for various propagation environments in emerging 5G systems,”
in 2018 22nd International Microwave and Radar Conference (MIKON),
Poznan, Poland, 15–17.05.2018., pp. 1–5.

For large DS, the AS increase is insignificant and we can
assume that goes asymptotically to a certain limit value. This
trend is well illustrated in Fig. 10.

Fig. 8. AS versus |αT| for UMi/UMa O2I and narrow-beam Tx antenna.

Fig. 10. AS versus DS for αT = 180°.

In [27], for 6 and 60 GHz, the influence of the directions,
αT and αR, of the transmitting and receiving antenna,
respectively, on ASs at the reception point and receiving
antenna output is analyzed. The obtained results show a
significant influence of the directional receiving antennas on
the reduction of the angular dispersion in the received signal.
This fact is confirmed by the results presented in Table III,
which are obtained for the analyzed environments and selected
antenna directions, i.e., for αT = 180° and αR = 0°.
Fig. 9. AS versus |αT| for UMi/UMa O2I and wide-beam Tx antenna.

We can see that the shape of the depicted graphs is closely
related to the transmitting antenna parameters, especially its
HPBW. Whereas, for fixed αT, an influence of PDP and DS on
ASs is better visible. To compare the analyzed propagation
environment types, ASs for αT = 180° are presented in Table II.
TABLE II.
Environment
Type

Indoor office

UMi
street-canyon

UMa
UMi / UMa
O2I

COMPARISON OF AS AT RECEPTION POINT FOR DIFFERENT
PROPAGATION SCENARIOS
Scenario

Sc1
Sc2
Sc3
Sc4
Sc5
Sc6
Sc7
Sc8
Sc9
Sc10
Sc11

DS
(ns)
16
18
41
30
61
297
78
249
786
240
616

AS at reception point (º)
PDP: TDL-A
NBA
WBA

PDP: TDL-B
NBA
WBA

50.4
52.0
62.1
58.5
66.1
74.9
68.2
74.4
76.6
74.3
76.3

16.9
17.3
20.0
19.0
21.1
24.2
21.8
24.0
24.9
23.9
24.8

52.0
54.4
72.8
65.6
82.4
117.6
88.4
114.4
130.8
113.7
128.3

28.2
29.4
38.6
35.0
43.2
60.5
46.1
58.9
68.1
58.5
66.5

In general, AS increase with increasing DS. The rate of
increase depends on the used PDP and HPBW of the Tx
antenna. Obviously, ASs are larger for WBA than NBA. In
addition, ASs are greater for TDL-A than TDL-B. This is due
to the fact that the power level for the local scattering, i.e., for
delay equal to 0, in TDL-B (–13.4 dB) is lower than for TDL-A
(0 dB).

TABLE III.
Environment
Type

Indoor office

UMi
street-canyon

UMa
UMi / UMa
O2I

COMPARISON OF AS AT RECEIVING ANTENNA OUTPUT FOR
DIFFERENT PROPAGATION SCENARIOS
Scenario

Sc1
Sc2
Sc3
Sc4
Sc5
Sc6
Sc7
Sc8
Sc9
Sc10
Sc11

DS
(ns)
16
18
41
30
61
297
78
249
786
240
616

AS at Rx antenna output (º)
TDL-A
NBA
WBA

3.5
3.5
3.5
3.5
3.5
3.5
3.5
3.5
3.5
3.5
3.5

15.4
15.9
19.5
18.3
20.5
11.1
20.4
12.4
7.6
12.7
7.9

TDL-B
NBA
WBA

3.5
3.5
3.5
3.5
3.5
3.5
3.5
3.5
3.5
3.5
3.5

9.1
9.2
9.6
9.5
9.6
8.1
9.5
8.3
7.3
8.4
7.5

The influence of the antenna pattern on limiting the angular
dispersion is particularly visible to NBA. In this case, AS is
fixed, amount to 3.5°, and does not depend on the propagation
environment type. For WBA, AS at the Rx antenna output in
relation to the reception point can be from a few to a dozen
times smaller.
V. CONCLUSION
The purpose of this paper was to evaluate the angular
dispersion for various types of propagation environments for
38-39 GHz. The carried out simulation analysis was based on
MPM and the 3GPP standard, which defines the environment
types. The obtained results show a significant differentiation of

Jan M. Kelner, Cezary Ziółkowski, and Bogdan Uljasz,
“Evaluation of angular dispersion for various propagation environments in emerging 5G systems,”
in 2018 22nd International Microwave and Radar Conference (MIKON),
Poznan, Poland, 15–17.05.2018., pp. 1–5.

AS at the reception point for various environments and
transmitting antenna types. In addition, the significant effect of
the directional receiving antennas on the reduction of the
angular dispersion is shown. Presented issues are important
from the point of view of the emerging 5G systems, which will
be used the millimeter waves and new antenna techniques such
as massive MIMO or APAA.
REFERENCES
[1]
[2]
[3]

[4]
[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]
[9]
[10]
[11]

[12]

[13]

M. Sauter, 3G, 4G and beyond: Bringing networks, devices and the web
together, 2nd ed. Chichester, West Sussex, UK: Wiley, 2013.
N. Prasad and A. Prasad, 802.11 WLANs and IP networking: Security,
QoS, and mobility. Boston, MA, USA: Artech House, 2005.
Y. Yang, J. Xu, G. Shi, and C.-X. Wang, 5G wireless systems:
Simulation and evaluation techniques. New York, NY, USA: Springer,
2017.
P. Raj and A. C. Raman, The Internet of things: Enabling technologies,
platforms, and use cases. Boca Raton, FL, USA: CRC Press, 2017.
T. S. Rappaport, G. R. MacCartney, M. K. Samimi, and S. Sun,
“Wideband millimeter-wave propagation measurements and channel
models for future wireless communication system design,” IEEE Trans.
Commun., vol. 63, no. 9, pp. 3029–3056, Sep. 2015.
J. F. Federici, L. Moeller, and K. Su, “Terahertz wireless
communications,” in Handbook of terahertz technology for imaging,
sensing and communications, D. Saeedkia, Ed. Oxford, England;
Philadelphia, PA, USA: Woodhead Publishing, 2013, pp. 156–214.
J. Federici and L. Moeller, “Review of terahertz and subterahertz
wireless communications,” J. Appl. Phys., vol. 107, no. 11, p. 111101,
Jun. 2010.
H. Kaushal, V. K. Jain, and S. Kar, Free space optical communication.
New York, NY, USA: Springer, 2017.
J. Mikołajczyk et al., “Analysis of free-space optics development,”
Metrol. Meas. Syst., vol. 24, no. 4, pp. 653–674, Dec. 2017.
P. D. Lin, Advanced geometrical optics. New York, NY, USA: Springer,
2016.
A. Ahmed, S. J. Nawaz, and S. M. Gulfam, “A 3-D propagation model
for emerging land mobile radio cellular environments,” PLoS ONE, vol.
10, no. 8, p. e0132555, Aug. 2015.
M. K. Samimi and T. S. Rappaport, “Local multipath model parameters
for generating 5G millimeter-wave 3GPP-like channel impulse
response,” in 2016 10th European Conference on Antennas and
Propagation (EuCAP), Davos, Switzerland, 2016, pp. 1–5.
“3GPP TR 38.901 V14.2.0 (2017-09). Study on channel model for
frequencies from 0.5 to 100 GHz (Release 14),” 3rd Generation
Partnership Project (3GPP), Technical Specification Group Radio

[14]

[15]
[16]

[17]

[18]

[19]

[20]

[21]

[22]

[23]

[24]

[25]
[26]

[27]

Access Network, Valbonne, France, Tech. Rep. 3GPP TR 38.901
V14.2.0, Sep. 2017.
M. M. da Silva and F. A. Monteiro, Eds., MIMO processing for 4G and
beyond: Fundamentals and evolution, 1 edition. Boca Raton: CRC
Press, 2014.
W. Liu and S. Weiss, Wideband beamforming: Concepts and techniques.
Chichester, West Sussex, UK: Wiley, 2010.
T. L. Marzetta, E. G. Larsson, H. Yang, and H. Q. Ngo, Fundamentals
of massive MIMO. Cambridge, United Kingdom ; New York:
Cambridge University Press, 2016.
A. Taira et al., “Performance evaluation of 44GHz band massive MIMO
based on channel measurement,” in 2015 IEEE Globecom Workshops
(GC Wkshps), 2015, pp. 1–6.
J. M. Kelner and C. Ziółkowski, “Modeling power angle spectrum and
antenna pattern directions in multipath propagation environment,” in
2018 12th European Conference on Antennas and Propagation
(EUCAP), London, UK, 2018, pp. 1–5.
C. Ziółkowski and J. M. Kelner, “Estimation of the reception angle
distribution based on the power delay spectrum or profile,” Int. J.
Antennas Propag., vol. 2015, p. e936406, Dec. 2015.
J. D. Parsons and A. S. Bajwa, “Wideband characterisation of fading
mobile radio channels,” IEE Proc. F Commun. Radar Signal Process.,
vol. 129, no. 2, pp. 95–101, Apr. 1982.
A. Abdi, J. A. Barger, and M. Kaveh, “A parametric model for the
distribution of the angle of arrival and the associated correlation function
and power spectrum at the mobile station,” IEEE Trans. Veh. Technol.,
vol. 51, no. 3, pp. 425–434, May 2002.
C. Ziółkowski and J. M. Kelner, “Antenna pattern in three-dimensional
modelling of the arrival angle in simulation studies of wireless
channels,” IET Microw. Antennas Propag., vol. 11, no. 6, pp. 898–906,
May 2017.
C. Ziółkowski and J. M. Kelner, “Statistical evaluation of the azimuth
and elevation angles seen at the output of the receiving antenna,” IEEE
Trans. Antennas Propag., vol. 66, 2018.
C. Ziółkowski, J. M. Kelner, L. Nowosielski, and M. Wnuk, “Modeling
the distribution of the arrival angle based on transmitter antenna
pattern,” in 2017 11th European Conference on Antennas and
Propagation (EUCAP), Paris, France, 2017, pp. 1582–1586.
IST-WINNER II, “WINNER. Final report on link level and system level
channel models,” IST-2003-507581 WINNER, D5.4 v. 1.4, Nov. 2005.
R. Vaughan and J. Bach Andersen, Channels, propagation and antennas
for mobile communications. London, UK: Institution of Engineering and
Technology, 2003.
J. M. Kelner, C. Ziółkowski, and B. Uljasz, “Comparison of angular
spread for 6 and 60 GHz based on 3GPP standard,” in 2018 22nd
International Microwave and Radar Conference (MIKON), Poznan,
Poland, 2018, pp. 1–5.

Jan M. Kelner, Cezary Ziółkowski, and Bogdan Uljasz,
“Evaluation of angular dispersion for various propagation environments in emerging 5G systems,”
in 2018 22nd International Microwave and Radar Conference (MIKON),
Poznan, Poland, 15–17.05.2018., pp. 1–5.

