nda- floor links, Ricean distributions fitted the delay spread mental difference leads to the conclusion that it is not distribution best, for LoS in-building corridors log- allowed (though quite often done) to uncritically adopt normal distributions gave the best fit. The authors no- results and models found from investigations of channels ticed a distinct dependence of the delay spread on the with linearly moving antennas to applications with clipping level: considering only multipath components moving scatterers in an otherwise static environment, stronger than -20 dB under the instantaneous maxi- Figures 4.7-38 and 4.7-39. mum amplitude gave a median in-building delay spread Globally, these results have shown that the influence of around 27 ns while for an instantaneous dynamic of moving scatterers cannot be neglected, as it has been range of 35 dB this figure became 44 ns [SaHi03]. done quite often. Concerning the frequency dependence For an outdoor-to-indoor setting at 5.2 GHz in Lund, of the influence of moving scatterers and/or moving an- Sweden, Wyne et al. reported smaller dispersion figures tennas on the channel behaviour, no fundamental dif- [WAKE04], although this could well be contributed to ferences have been found from the comparison of the the geometry of the measurement set-up and not to the three different frequency bands. different frequency band. Median values for the RMS As a major conclusion, it can be stated that, for a sta- delay spread were 7-10 ns for rooms facing the TXs, tistical modelling, an unmodified application of the well- 12-14 ns for rooms at the opposite side of the wing, and known models for channels with moving transmitters or 8-12 ns in between, in the corridor. Spreads on AoA receivers to channels with moving scatterers obviously were almost independent of receiver or transmitter seems to be not very realistic. location (about 0.24 or 14°) but the spreads of the AoD CHAPTER 4.7 Propagation modelling and channel characterisation Table 4.7-10 Angular spreads for various mea