 height hobt. namely, 42.83 2 and placed 105.25 2 away from the obstacle. The receiver R x has been placed 120.25 2 away from the obstacle in the shadowed region, in other words, where no line-of-sight communication takes place. Propagation path loss is predicted when the receiver moves from NLOS to LOS vertically. The obtained path loss results for the UTD-PO and the FKE approaches show the same results when compared with the measurement data available for the single knife edge obstacle. Table 6.1 shows that the estimated path loss results obtained for the UTD-PO and the FKE approaches had mean errors of 0.6443 dB and 0.6445 dB, respectively. When compared to the mean error result predicted for the FKE approach, the predicted result for the UTD-PO Measurement Data UTD-PO (LOS) 105.252 120.752 Recevier Height (wavelength) FIGURE 6.9 A comparison of results obtained for the path loss of a single knife edge obstacle for the UTD-PO and the FKE approach with the available measurement data. 5G Wireless Communication System in Healthcare Informatics Measurement Data UTD-PO (LOS) (NLOS) 106.02 120.02 Receiver Height (wavelength) FIGURE 6.10 A comparison of the path loss obtained for a single knife edge obstacle using the UTD-PO and the FKE approaches with the available measurement data. approach indicates a marginal improvement of 0.0002 dB. Also, data analysis for a single knife edge obstacle when transmitter T is above the obstacle shows that the UTD-PO and the FKE approaches give the same results. Figure 6.10 shows the prediction of path loss over a single knife edge obstacle where transmitter T is of height hix 37.67Abelow the obstacle height hobi' which is 42.83 A and placed 106.9 Aaway from the obstacle. The receiver R is placed 120.02 away from the obstacle in the shadowed region, namely, NLOS. Propagation path loss is predicted when the receiver moves from NLOS to LOS vertically. The path loss results obtained for the UTD-PO and the FKE approaches show the same results when compared with the measurement data ava