 the first obstacle height h obtl 42.41 Aand it is placed 86.06 Aaway from the first obstacle. The second obstacle is of height hob12 of 17.02 placed 17.08 2 away from the first obstacle. The third obstacle of height h obt3 of 46.50 Ais placed 12.91 2 away from the second obstacle. The receiver R has been placed 76.08Aaway from the third obstacle in the shadowed region. Propagation path loss is predicted when the receiver moves from NLOS to LOS verti- cally. The path loss results obtained for the UTD-PO and the FKE approaches show the same results when compared with the measurement data available for multiple knife-edge obstacles. Table 6.1 shows that the estimated path loss results obtained for the UTD-PO and the FKE approaches had mean errors of 1.3379 dB and 3.596dB, respectively. When compared to the mean error result predicted for the FKE approach, the predicted result for the UTD-PO approach indicates a significant improvement of 2.2581 dB. Also, data analysis for multiple knife-edge obstacles shows that the UTD- PO approach gives a better result than the FKE approach. The above results also show 5G Wireless Communication System in Healthcare Informatics Measurement Data UTD-PO (LOS) (NLOS) 86.062 76.082 17.08A 12.912 Recevier Height (wavelength) FIGURE 6.12 A comparison of the path loss obtained for multiple knife edge obstacles using the UTD-PO and the FKE approaches with the available measurement data. TABLE 6.1 Mean Error (in dB) UTD-PO show Mean Error UTD-PO improvement over (in dB) Approach Approach Figure 6.9 0.6443 0.6445 0.0002 Figure 6.10 0.2647 0.2648 0.0001 Figure 6.11 1.2192 2.7065 1.4873 Figure 6.12 1.3379 3.596 2.2581 that when the number of obstacles between transmitting and receiving points is one the UTD-PO and the FKE approaches give the same result. But when the number obstacles are increased, the path loss result for the FKE approach gives an inferior result than the path loss result obtained from the UTD-PO approach. This shows that the UTD-PO method is more accurate for predicting pat