Frequenz 2019; aop
A. G. Sreedevi*, T. Rama Rao and M. Susila
Device-to-Device Radio Link Analysis at 2.4, 3.4,
5.2, 28 and 60 GHz in Indoor Communication
Environments
https://doi.org/10.1515/freq-2018-0158
Received July 16, 2018
Abstract: Device-to-device (D2D) communication has
become one of the major areas of research ever since the
industry was advancing to LTE and 5G. In this nascent
stage of transformation, this research work characterizes
the radio link behavior of D2D communication network in
an indoor environment utilizing licensed and unlicensed
band experiments and ray-tracing based simulations at
frequencies of 2.4, 3.4, 5.2, 28 and 60 GHz. The path loss
exponent (PLE) and standard deviation are estimated and
compared with free space path loss (FSPL), log normal
shadowing (LNS), International Telecommunication
Union (ITU) model and also, compared with other research
works. This work also studied the impact of indoor
environments on D2D communications along with link
budget, channel capacities and required performance
improvements.
Keywords: device-to-device communications, indoor
environment, link budget, millimeter wave, pathloss
exponent, radio link analysis
1 Introduction
The Device-to-device (D2D) has turned out to be an inno-
vative technology for direct communication with in small
area for wireless application scenarios. The concept of D2D
communication was first proposed a decade ago [1, 2] and
later it led scope of research in many real time applica-
tions for high data rate direct communications via LTE or
Wi-Fi transmissions [3]. D2D utilizing licenced and unli-
censed bands has triggered the research community,
industry and regulators to consider alternative bands like
*Corresponding author: A. G. Sreedevi, Department of
Telecommunication Engineering, SRM Institute of Science and
Technology, Kattankulathur, Tamil Nadu, India,
E-mail: agsreedevi@gmail.com
T. Rama Rao: E-mail: ramaraotr@gmail.com, M. Susila:
E-mail: susilasrm@gmail.com, Department of Telecommunication
Engineering, SRM Institute of Science and Technology,
Kattankulathur, Tamil Nadu, India
millimetre waves for high speed data traffic [4]. Some real
time applications of D2D including high and low data rate
are listed in Figure 1, which includes public safety ser-
vices, entertainments like gaming and augmented reality,
vehicular communications, and advertisements.
Starting with Bluetooth [3], and Wi-Fi [4], now D2D
stands in the era of LTE [5] and 5G [6] supporting high
data rates with reliability and security. D2D has shown
its relevance in each wireless domain. Initially, D2D co-
existed with other similar technologies like ZigBee,
NFC, Wi-Fi Direct, and LTE Direct and a comparison
are listed in Table 1. D2D standardization is under
progress and it works with licensed and unlicensed
bands. Even though D2D is a direct means of commu-
nication, Base Station (BS) coordinates the device dis-
covery step. Similarly, D2D is widely used when
compared to M2M (Machine to Machine) and adhoc
networks.
A comparison of properties of D2D, M2M, Adhoc and
Cellular are illustrated in Table 2. Seamless connectivity,
guaranteed security and QoS, random deployment and
mobility support has made D2D popular compared to
M2M and adhoc networks. D2D started getting prevalent
as a reliable QoS communication standard, with the
advent of LTE [5]. Later the advent of 5 G [6] has led
high interest to research community and triggered many
researches. However, many recent studies of D2D, in
millimeter wave bands, 28, 38, 60 and 73 GHz, are
more likely to be used by 5 G for mobile cellular com-
munication systems [11, 12]. Considering the effects
caused by rain attenuation on the propagation of milli-
meter-wave at 28 to 38 GHz for the small cells, a large
account of excellent works have focused on the propa-
gation characteristics of those bands in urban microcell
scenarios [13].
Investigation of radio propagation behavior of D2D
networks at varied frequencies in indoor environments
is always of interest to researchers. The radio link
study at 2.4 and 5.2 GHz in LOS hall environment [14],
office environment [15], staircase [16] are some research
work which targets indoor small cell communication
systems. At 28 and 60 GHz, indoor measurements
Authenticated | agsreedevi@gmail.com author's copy
Download Date | 1/17/19 6:10 AM
2 A. G. Sreedevi et al.: Device-to-Device Radio Link Analysis

Figure 1: Different Areas of D2D Application Scenarios.

were found in research works [17, 18] at 3rd floor of
University building, and office environment respec-
tively. Very limited study in such areas available and
one similar work is on D2D propagation effect in rural
areas at 922 and 2466 MHz [19]. And another work
presents the pathloss for D2D communications in
urban environments for millimetre wave frequencies
[20]. Hence, D2D communication and its propagation
effects at indoor environment are of importance to
industry and researchers. This paper focuses on D2Ds
path loss behavior in indoor environments, inside a
conference room. Specifically, this paper reports the
results over frequencies of 2.4, 3.4, 5.2, 28 and 60 GHz
in a typical Indian country side indoor environment at
a high raised building in 13th floor conference room
with table, chairs and walls. The areas are considered
with low human density and movement. Among these
frequencies, 3.4 GHz (3.3 to 3.4 GHz) is of high interest

Table 1: Comparison of short range wireless transmission techniques [7–10].

Property ZigBee NFC Bluetooth Wi-Fi Direct UWB LTE Direct DD
.

Standardization .. ISO , Bluetooth . ..a E-UTRAN Yet to Standardized
SIG
Frequency band / MHz, . MHz . GHz . GHz, .–.  GHz Licensed and
. GHz  GHz GHz License free
Distance – m . m – m  m  m  m – m
Data rate  kb/s  kb/s  Mb/s  Mb/s  Mb/s . Mb/s  Gb/s
Propagation LOS LOS LOS/NLOS LOS/NLOS LOS/NLOS LOS/NLOS LOS/NLOS
Device discovery ID broadcast or Radio frequency Manual ID broadcast Manual Service BS coordination
coordinator identification pairing and embed soft pairing broadcast
assistant access point
Applications Entertainment, Contactless Object Content Wireless Content Public safety,
environmental payment systems, exchange, sharing, group USB, sharing, content sharing,
monitoring Bluetooth and Wi-Fi peripherals gaming, device HD video, local local advertising,
connections connection connection precision advertising cellular relay
location &
tracking,
auto radar

Authenticated | agsreedevi@gmail.com author's copy

Download Date | 1/17/19 6:10 AM
 A. G. Sreedevi et al.: Device-to-Device Radio Link Analysis 3

Table 2: A brief comparison of D2D communications with other wireless networks [7–10].

Properties DD MM Adhoc Cellular

Spectrum Licensed and Free Spectrum Licensed and Free Spectrum Free Spectrum Licensed Spectrum
Connectivity Seamless Manual Manual Seamless
Services Opportunistic Application oriented Service oriented Service oriented
Security Guaranteed Security is a challenge Security is a challenge Guaranteed
QoS Ensured No guarantee No guarantee Ensured
Deployment Random Random Random Structured
Mobility Yes Low Low Yes

to research as it’s being announced as 5 G band for 2 Measurement analysis

India [21] and no research work is being published in
this band.
This research work presents the measurements in
terms of the observed statistical parameters of the col-
lected data. The reported parameters are namely, the
path loss exponent (PLE), standard deviation, pathloss
(PL) and received signal strength (RSS). These results can
be of useful to researchers and industries for developing
and estimating algorithms, protocols and robustness of
D2D networks under realistic situations. The research
study starts with measurement analysis in Section 2
explaining the indoor environment, simulation setup
and measurement setup. Section 3 deals with statistical
and numerical results of the measurement campaign at
indoor environment and Section 4 deals with concluding
remarks and future research.
This section characterizes the indoor environment, by
estimating PLE, PL, standard deviation and RSS. The
subsections explain the selected indoor environment,
and the procedure used to conduct the measurements.
2.1 Indoor environment
Figure 2 depicts the indoor measurement area, the confer-
ence room, 13th Floor, Tech Park of SRM Institute of Science
and Technology, Chennai, India. The selected room is of
dimension 12 m × 5 m × 3 m, and is made of concrete on
one side, and layered dry wall on three sides with glass
doors and windows. The floor is covered with Porcelain

Figure 2: Top View of Conference Room Environment: Illustrating the structure and materials used.

Authenticated | agsreedevi@gmail.com author's copy

Download Date | 1/17/19 6:10 AM
4 A. G. Sreedevi et al.: Device-to-Device Radio Link Analysis

Table 3: Relative permittivity of different materials [22] in conference room.

Material Relative Conductivity (S/m)

Permittivity, εr
. GHz . GHz . GHz  GHz  GHz

Concrete . . . . . .

Layered dry wall . . . . . .
Porcelain Tiles . . . . . .
Gypsum board . . . . . .
Glass . . . . . .
Wood . . . . . .
Cushion . . . . . .
PVC . . . . . .

tiles and the concrete ceiling is covered with Gypsum board.
The door and windows are made of glass whereas the table
and chairs are made of wood and cushions, respectively. The
room also has a projector screen made up of PVC. Table 3
provides the relative permittivity of materials considered for
measurements based on ITU-R-P.1238–7 [22]. Conductivity
depends on frequency and is calculated as per [22].
2.2 Measurement setup
Figure 3(a) shows the measurement setup used to con-
duct the D2D indoor experiments at 2.4, 3.4 and 5.2 GHz.
The transmitter is capable of producing a maximum out-
put power of 10 dBm approximately. It is connected to a
transmit antenna with 4 dBi gain at 2.4 and 5.2 GHz and 5
dBi gain at 3.4 GHz. As shown in figure, the transmitter
was mounted on a telescopic mast at a height of 0.75
metres, this emulating a human sitting in conference
room with a device capable of D2D. The receiver used is
a handheld zedboard (410–248 Zed) interfaced with AD-
FMCOMMS3-EBZ (RF Synchronized 2 × 2 Transceiver mod-
ule) connected to a receiver antenna with similar proper-
ties as that of transmit antenna. A laptop is connected to
the zedboard to record the measurements. The receiver
set up was condensed into a portable form and was

(a)

(b)
Figure 3: Indoor measurement setup: (a) for 2.4, 3.4 and 5.2 GHz, and (b) for 60 GHz.

Authenticated | agsreedevi@gmail.com author's copy

Download Date | 1/17/19 6:10 AM
 A. G. Sreedevi et al.: Device-to-Device Radio Link Analysis 5

carried by a person during the time of measurements.

Receiver antenna is kept at same height of 0.75 metres,
all time during the measurements. Table 4, lists the mea-
surement parameters. While taking measurements, the
receiver is placed at different locations inside the confer-
ence room and the recorded data includes distance and
received power.
For 60 GHz, the measurements were taken out with
the Millysys’s TRA – 5960FW transceiver pair [23]. A refer- Figure 4: 2D and 3D layout of simulation setup of conference room
ence signal of 10 MHz for phase locked loop and an inter- in WI.
mediate frequency of 3 GHz are fed to the transmitter for
generating 60 GHz frequency, is depicted in Figure 3(b).
room setup used to study the D2D network link perfor-
A signal generator (Agilent’s N5182A MXG) [24] is used to
mance at 2.4, 5.2, 3.4, 28 and 60 GHz using X3D ray-tracing
feed the transmitter. The transmitter and receiver antenna
model covering the entire room. X3D [28] model takes into
is of gain 25.3 dBi and is placed at a height of 0.75 metres.
account 3D antenna patterns and detailed building, floor
The receiver is connected to a spectrum analyzer
plan and terrain features present in the propagation envir-
(Agilent’s N9010A EXA) [25] with the span set to 50. The
onment, including their material properties. We have used
control and data storage is also accomplished by the
time domain analysis, considering reflection and diffrac-
spectrum analyzer. Due to the unavailability of measure-
tion, whereas scattering is not taken into consideration
ment setup for 28 GHz, the validation of measurements is
which is caused by surface roughness because of the
carried out only for 60 GHz band [26]. Measurement con-
complexity in simulation.
figurations are given in Table 4.

2.3 Simulation setup 3 Results and discussions

This work discusses and analyses the effect of RSS, and PL
of D2D inside the indoor environment explained in earlier
section A. Using the ray-tracing tool, Wireless Insite (WI)
[27], we created the exact same indoor environment and
placed the devices around the table in sitting positions at
height of 0.75 metres and evaluated the results. WI is a 3D
wireless prediction software suitable for ray tracing and
high-fidelity EM analysis for radio wave propagation and
wireless communication systems. It provides efficient and
accurate predictions of EM propagation and communica-
tion channel characteristics in complex urban, indoor,
rural and mixed path environments [27]. Figure 4 shows
the 13th Floor 2D and 3D layout along with conference
Following the setup explained in Section 1 and 2; the
simulations and measurements were carried out in the
indoor environment (Section 2.1). The sample points
recorded during the process are analyzed and compared
to Free Space Path Loss (FSPL) [29], Log Normal
Shadowing (LNS) [29] and ITU Model [22, 30]. The models
are briefed in coming sections.
3.1 Free space path loss model
FSPL is used in this paper as a reference model for ideal
case scenario. The model is given by:

Table 4: Measurement configurations.

CONFIGURATION VALUES

Center Frequency (GHz) . . .  

Channel Bandwidth (MHz)     
Transmit Power (dBm)     
Transmitter/Receiver Antenna Gain (dBi)    . .
(Omni) (Omni) (Omni) (Directional) (Directional)
Noise Figure (dB)     
Transmitter/Receiver Antenna Height (m) . . . . .

Authenticated | agsreedevi@gmail.com author's copy

Download Date | 1/17/19 6:10 AM
6 A. G. Sreedevi et al.: Device-to-Device Radio Link Analysis

2 Table 6: N and Lf values from ITU-R P.1238–9 [22].

4πdf
PLðdÞ = 10 log10 dB (1)
c
Parameters . GHz . GHz . GHz  GHz  GHz

where PLðdÞ is the pathloss in dB at a distance of d N    . 

metres from the transmitter; f is the frequency in Hz; Lf     
and c is the speed of light, 3 × 108 m=s.

number of floors between base station and portable

terminalðn ≥ 0Þ, Lf = 0 dB for n = 0.
3.2 Log normal shadowing model

One of the widely accepted models for indoor propaga- 3.4 Result analysis
tion is LNS, and is given by:

 Before analyzing the results of FSPL, LNS and ITU model,

d
PLðdÞ = PLðd0 Þ + 10 α log10 + Xσ dB
d0
Where PLðdÞ is the pathloss in dB at a distance of d metres
from the transmitter; PLðd0 Þ is the reference pathloss in dB
at a distance of d0 = 1 metres from the transmitter; α is the
PLE; and Xσ is the zero-mean Gaussian distributed random
variable with a standard deviation of σ dB. The parameter
values used are listed in Table 5.
3.3 ITU model
ITU Recommendation ITU-R P.1238–9 [22] provides gui-
dance on indoor propagation over the frequency range
from 300 MHz to 100 GHz. It gives information on PL,
delay spread, effects of transmitter and receiver siting,
and statistical models. This paper uses the model given
below and the values as listed in Table 6.
d
Ltotal = Lðd0 Þ + N log10 + Lf ðnÞ dB
d0
Where N is the distance power loss coefficient; f is the
frequency (MHz); d is the separation distance (m)
between the two devices (where d > 1m); d0 is the refer-
ence distance (m); Lðd0 Þ is the path loss at d0 (dB), for a
refernce distance d0 at 1 m, and assuming free-space
propagation Lðd0 Þ = 20 log10 f − 28 where f is in MHz; Lf
is the floor penetration loss factor (dB); and n is the
(2) to emphasis the significance of this work, a typical link
budget for the indoor D2D communication at LOS for the
five different frequencies 2.4, 3.4, 5.2, 28 and 60 GHz is
listed in Table 7.
The results obtained by following the procedures
explained in pre-section 2 is analyzed as following:
i. Figures 5 and 6 shows the PL for 2.4 and 5.2 GHz. The
measured and WI values are averaged from a set of
30 observations for measured and 500 observations
for WI, to plot the graph. The measurement and WI
results differ by a minimum of 1.18 and 0.9 dB, and by
a maximum of 6.6 dB and 2.8 dB at 2.4 and 5.2 GHz
respectively. Similarly, the measured values differ by
17.56 to 21.65 dB, 9.17 to 16.81 dB and 1.6 to 12.09 dB
with reference to FSPL, LNS, and ITU Model for 2.
4 GHz; and 18.72 to 29.31 dB, 9.28 to 13.70 dB, and
0.81 to 5.22 dB w.r.t FSPL, LNS and ITU Model for
5.2 GHz. This difference is because of cable losses,
reflections, diffractions from tables, chairs, and
walls, and measurement losses. Also, many objects
(3) and equipment in the conference room are neglected
in the simulated environment. These results when
compared with FSPL, LNS and ITU models, follow
similar trend and thus validates the measured results.
ii. 3.4 GHz results are of interest to Indian researchers as
it’s been announced newly as the 5 G frequency band
for India. Figure 7 depicts the PL experienced at a
distance of 1 to 11 m in indoor environment at 3.4 GHz.
The measured and WI recorded values closely follow

Table 5: Parameter values for Log Normal Shadowing Model.

Parameters . GHz . GHz . GHz  GHz  GHz

PLðd0 Þ (dB) . . . . .

α . . . . .
σ . . . . .

Authenticated | agsreedevi@gmail.com author's copy

Download Date | 1/17/19 6:10 AM
 A. G. Sreedevi et al.: Device-to-Device Radio Link Analysis 7

Table 7: Typical System Link Budget for indoor D2D communication system.

PARAMETER VALUES

Carrier Frequency (GHz) . . .  

Max. range (m)     
Bandwidth (GHz) . . . . 
Transmit Power (dBm)     
Propagation Loss (dB) −. −. −. −. −.
Additional Loss (dB)     
Implementation Loss (dB) − − − − −
Thermal PSD (dBm/Hz) − − − − −
Rx. Noise Figure (dB)     
Rx. Thermal Noise (dB) −. − −. −. −
Receiver SNR (dB) . . . . .
Transmit Antenna Gain (dBi)    . .
Receive Antenna Gain (dBi)    . .

Figure 7: Comparison of measured path loss with FSPL, LNS, ITU and
Figure 5: Comparison of measured path loss with FSPL, LNS, ITU and WI at 3.4 GHz.
WI at 2.4 GHz.

Figure 6: Comparison of measured path loss with FSPL, LNS, ITU and
Figure 8: Comparison of WI path loss with FSPL, LNS, and ITU at
WI at 5.2 GHz.
28 GHz.

same pattern with a deviation of 0.19 to 3.3 dB. The iii. Figure 8 is the PL observed at 28 GHz. Due to unavail-
results are then compared with FSPL, LNS and ability of antenna to perform real time measure-
ITU models in Figure 8. The analysis found ITU Model ments, this paper validates 28 GHz only by
to be in close correlation with measured and WI values. simulations. Later in this section we will be

Authenticated | agsreedevi@gmail.com author's copy

Download Date | 1/17/19 6:10 AM
8 A. G. Sreedevi et al.: Device-to-Device Radio Link Analysis
explaining the PL by statistical analysis. In Figure 8,
the simulated data coincides with LNS till 5 metres,
after which the loss increases and having a maximum
deviation of 4.54 dB. We observed WI data having a
deviation of 1.67 to 5.93 dB, 0.32 to 4.54 dB and
1.66 to 6.97 dB in reference to FSPL, LNS, and ITU
respectively.
iv. Figure 9 explains the performance of D2D at 60 GHz
[26]. The performance of 60 GHz D2D network with
increased loss compared to results at 2.4, 5.2 and
28 GHz is because of atmospheric attenuation and
less penetration to walls, tables and chairs. Here the
deviation observed was 8.35 to 12.14 dB, 7.20 to
1.20 dB, 5.82 to 11.57 dB and 2.5 to 5.7 dB w.r.t FSPL,
LNS, ITU and WI.
Figure 9: Comparison of measured path loss with FSPL, LNS, ITU and
WI at 60 GHz.
Figure 10 provides linear fitting performed on PL mea-
surement samples at all the five frequencies. The PL of a
signal depends on the environment being measured and
the type of structures around the vicinity [20]. In this
case, the conference room consists of tables, chairs and
projection screen with transparent glass walls. The effect
from these can be clearly seen from the higher PLEs
observed for the conference room. The structures inside
the conference room also cause interference due to multi-
path which is another reason for increased PLE.
The standard deviation can be found by calculating
the standard deviation of the PL with respect to the line-
arly fitted line [22]. It can be expressed mathematically by:
vffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
u N h
u1 X
σ= t PLðdi Þ − PLðdi Þ
N i=1
Where, N is the number of measured samples, PLðdi Þ is a
PL sample measured at a certain distance di in dB, and
PLðdi Þ is the corresponding mean PL in dB obtained from
the curve-fitting process.
The standard deviation for different frequencies 2.4, 3.4,
5.2, 28 and 60 GHz inside conference room comparing mea-
surements and WI is given in Table 8. From table, it is
observed that the highest standard deviation is for measured
PL values, as PLE and standard deviation is affected by
measurement losses, environmental structures, and other
atmospheric losses. Also, the standard deviation depends
on frequency of signal being considered and also on the
indoor environment structure. It could be observed from
Table 8 that 60 GHz had higher standard deviation compared
to all other frequencies. Similarly, PL at reference distance
d0 = 1 m is higher for 60 GHz in comparison with other fre-
quencies. Comparing PLðd0 Þ, α and σ with the research
paper [32] and research book by Rappaport [29], it is
observed that the recorded values are in similar range and
deviation. This evidences our measurements and studies
conducted at indoor environment for the five frequencies.
In Figure 11, the channel capacities of D2D under
different distances from 1 to 10 m between the transmitter
and receiver is listed and compared with other research
works. Since D2D considered is LOS, the capacities are
calculated based on Shannon’s channel capacity. It is
perceived that channel capacity varies considerably
with distance. Therefore, the selection of modulation
and coding schemes (MCS) should be performed accord-
ing to the channel states to fully exploit the potential of
Millimeter Wave communications [34].
This study also conducted on how to achieve capa-
city improvement in D2D network, assuming all D2D
devices using same modulation and coding, and as a
function of propagation loss including shadowing effects
and the required EIRP (equivalent isotropic radiated
power) [35] is given by,



B f
R = 10 log + β log (5)
Br fr
Where R in dB is the required performance improvement to
achieve the bit rate B, fr is the reference frequency, Br is the
reference bit rate and β is the propagation factor for fre-
quency. β = 20 for free space propagation [35]. Figure 12
shows case 1, R as a function of f to achieve 1 Gbps with 20,
where Br and fr equals 0.5 Gbps and 5 GHz. Here it is visible
from graph that R must be −7.74, −0.78, 7.7, 41.4 and 56.6 dB
i2
for 2.4, 3.4, 5.2, 28 and 60 GHz to keep the same coverage.
(4) This means, we could keep same D2D cell radius, by increas-
ing EIRP by −7.74, −0.78, 7.7, 41.4 or 56.6 dB, if 2.4, 3.4, 5.2, 28
Authenticated | agsreedevi@gmail.com author's copy
Download Date | 1/17/19 6:10 AM
 A. G. Sreedevi et al.: Device-to-Device Radio Link Analysis 9

Figure 10: Path loss in dB and curve fitting for all the frequencies: based on WI.

Table 8: Estimated PLðd0 Þ, α and σ from WI and measurements.

FREQUENCY PLðd0 Þ α σ

. . . Measured

. GHz . . . WI – XD
. . . []
. GHz . . . Measured
. . . WI – XD
. . . Measured
. GHz . . . WI – XD
. . . []
 GHz . . . WI – XD
. . . []
. . . Measured
 GHz . . . WI – XD
Figure 11: Channel capacities under different distances for 2.4, 3.4,
. . . []
5.2, 28 and 60 GHz.

Authenticated | agsreedevi@gmail.com author's copy

Download Date | 1/17/19 6:10 AM
10 A. G. Sreedevi et al.: Device-to-Device Radio Link Analysis
Figure 12: Required performance improvement.
Case 1: to achieve 1 Gbps from 0.5 Gbps as a function of frequency,
and Case 2: to achieve 2 Gbps from 1 Gbps as a function of
frequency.
or 60 GHz are used respectively. For example, at 60 GHz
band, we need to achieve a 56.6 dB improvement, otherwise
D2D cell radius need to be shortened. The discussion will be
similar for case 2, Br and fr equals 1 Gbps and 30 GHz with R
as a function of 2 Gbps. Here EIRP need to be increased by
20.8 for 60 GHz to get the same coverage for case 2.
This concludes, the need of going to higher frequency
band with a shorter cell radius resulting in increase in
number of D2D devices in the network. Thus increasing
the system cost. Therefore, to achieve wide area coverage
as well as high system capacity simultaneously, we should
take a combined approach by using both lower frequen-
cies to cover a wide area and higher frequency to increase
the system capacity [36]. This concept of D2D is essential
for future wireless device communications.
4 Conclusions
This research investigated the radio link behavior of D2D
network in an indoor environment using RF measure-
ments and electromagnetic simulations in a conference
room of a multi storied building at 5 different frequen-
cies: 2.4, 3.4, 5.2, 28 and 60 GHz. The results were pre-
sented for FSPL, ITU, LNS, WI and Measured on all five
frequencies for PL, standard deviation and PLE, along
with link budget. The observed data when compared
with other research works showed similar range and
deviation for PLE and standard deviation. This work
also studied the channel capacities and performance
improvement required at a frequency range of 2 to
60 GHz. The result reported in this research work could
be used to develop and design D2D models and charac-
terize channels under realistic radio link conditions for
indoor environments.
Acknowledgements: The authors are grateful to DRDO,
Govt. of India for providing the facilities required for the
measurements.
References
[1] K. Doppler, et al., “Device-to-device communication as an
underlay to LTE-advanced networks,” IEEE Commun. Mag., vol.
47, no. 12, pp. 42–49, 2009.
[2] K. Doppler and M. Xiao, Innovative Concepts in Peer-to-Peer
and Network Coding, WINNER+/CELTIC Deliverable CELTIC/CP5-
026, D1.3, 2008.
[3] M. Hoyhtya, “Olli apilo and mika lasanen, review of latest
advances in 3GPP standardization: D2D communication in 5 G
systems and its energy consumption models,” MDPI J. Future
Int., vol. 10, no. 3, pp. 1–18, 2018.
[4] B. Zhou, S. Ma, J. Xu, and Z. Li, Group-wise channel sensing
and resource pre-allocation for LTE D2D on ISM band, 2013 IEEE
Wireless Communications and Networking Conference (WCNC),
Shanghai, 2013, pp. 118–122.
[5] K. Doppler, M. P. Rinne, P. Janis, C. Ribeiro, and K. Hugl,
Device-to-device communications; functional prospects for LTE-
advanced networks, 2009 IEEE International Conference on
Communications Workshops, Dresden, 2009, pp. 1–6.
[6] D. Malak and M. Al-Shalash, Optimal caching for device-to-
device content distribution in 5 G networks, 2014 IEEE Globecom
Workshops (GC Wkshps), Austin, 2014, pp. 863–868.
[7] D. Feng, L. Lu, Y. Yuan-Wu, G. Y. Li, S. Li, and G. Feng, “Device-
to-device communications in cellular networks,” IEEE Commun.
Mag., vol. 52, no. 4, pp. 49–55, 2014.
[8] Qualcomm, “LTE Direct Always-On Device-to-Device Proximal
Discovery”. San Diego, U.S.A: Qualcomm Technologies, Inc.,
August. 2014.
[9] J. Scheim, A comparison of two fourth generation technologies:
WiMAX and 3GPP-LTE. Communication and Signal Processing
LTd.,Technology Business, December 2006.
[10] M. Haus, M. Waqas, A. Y. Ding, Y. Li, S. Tarkoma, and J. Ott,
“Security and privacy in device-to-device (D2D) communication:
a review,” IEEE Commun. Surv. Tutorials., vol. 19, no. 2, pp.
1054–1079, 2017.
[11] A. I. Sulyman, A. T. Nassar, M. K. Samimi, G. R. MacCartney, T.
S. Rappaport, and A. Alsanie, “Radio propagation path-loss
models for 5 G celluar networks in the 28 GHz and 38 GHz
millimeter-Wave bands,” IEEE Commun. Mag., vol. 14, no. 4,
pp. 78–86, 2014.
[12] Z. Pi and F. Khan, “An introduction to millimeter-wave mobile
broadband systems,” IEEE Commun. Mag., vol. 49, no. 6, pp.
101–107, 2011.
[13] T. S. Rappaport, S. Sun, M. Rimma, H. Zhao, Y. Azar, K. Wang,
G. N. Wong, J. K. Schulz, M. Samimi, and F. Gutierrez,
“Millimeter wave mobile communications for 5 G cellular It will
work!,” Ieee Access., vol. 1, pp. 335–349, 2013.
Authenticated | agsreedevi@gmail.com author's copy
Download Date | 1/17/19 6:10 AM

[14] L. Dai and D. Rutledge, Investigation of indoor radio channels
from 2.4 GHz to 24 GHz, IEEE Antennas and Propagation Society
International Symposium, Digest. Held in conjunction with:
USNC/CNC/URSI North American Radio Sci. Meeting,
Columbus, OH, 2 (2003), 134–137.
[15] Y. L. C. De Jong, J. A. Pugh, M. Bennai, and P. Bouchard, “2.4 to
61 GHz multiband double-directional propagation measure-
ments in indoor office environments,” IEEE Trans. Antennas
Propag., vol. 66, no. 9, pp. 4806–4820, 2018.
[16] S. Y. Lim, Z. Yun, and M. F. Iskander, “Propagation measurement
and modeling for indoor stairwells at 2.4 and 5.8 GHz,” IEEE
Trans. Antennas Propag., vol. 62, no. 9, pp. 4754–4761, 2014.
[17] A. A. AlAbdullah, N. Ali, H. Obeidat, R. A. Abd-Alhmeed, and S.
Jones, Indoor millimetre-wave propagation channel simulations
at 28, 39, 60 and 73 GHz for 5 G wireless networks, 2017 Internet
Technologies and Applications (ITA), Wrexham (2017), 235–239.
[18] K. Dong, X. Liao, and S. Zhu, “Link blockage analysis for indoor
60 ghz radio systems,” Electron. Lett., vol. 48, no. 23, pp.
1506–1508, 2012.
[19] S. Chandrasekharan, A. Al-Hourani, K. Magowe, L. Reynaud,
and S. Kandeepan, Propagation measurements for D2D in rural
areas, 2015 IEEE International Conference on Communication
Workshop (ICCW), London, 2015, pp. 639–645.
[20] A. Al-Hourani, S. Chandrasekharan, and S. Kandeepan, Path
loss study for millimeter wave device-to-device communica-
tions in Urban environment, in IEEE International Conference on
Communications Workshops (ICC), 2014, 102–107.
[21] 5 G frequency bands in INDIA, USA, Europe, CHINA, JAPAN,
Korea, 5 G Bands, RF Wireless World, http://www.rfwireless-
world.com/Tutorials/5G-frequency-bands.html.
[22] Rec. ITU-R P.1238-7, Propagation data and prediction methods
for the planning of indoor radio communication systems and
radio local area networks in the frequency range 900 MHz to
100 Ghz. P Series Radio wave propagation, Electronic
Publication, Geneva, Feb. 2012
[23] Communication Systems, www.millisys.com/newhome/pro
ducts1.htm.
A. G. Sreedevi et al.: Device-to-Device Radio Link Analysis 11
[24] MXG Vector Signal, Generator, http://www.keysight.com/en/
pd-797248-pn-N5182A/mxg-rf-vector-signal-generator?
çIN⌈eng.
[25] EXA X-Series Signal Analyser, http://cp.literature.agilent.com/
litweb/pdf/5989-6529EN.pdf.
[26] P. Shrivastava and R. R. Thipparaju, “60 GHz radio link char-
acteristic studies in hallway environment using antipodal linear
tapered slot antenna,” IET Microwaves Antennas Propag., vol.
9, no. 15, pp. 1793–1802, 2015.
[27] Wireless-InSite, http://www.remcom.com/wireless-insite
[28] X3D, high fidelity ray tracing, https://www.remcom.com/wire
less-insite-models/high-fidelity-ray-tracing.
[29] T. S. Rappaport, R. W. Heath, Jr, R. Daniels, and J. Murdock,
Millimeter Wave Wireless Communications. Upper Saddle River,
NJ, USA: Prentice-Hall, 2015.
[30] Recommendation ITU-R P.1238-9, propagation data and pre-
diction methods or the planning of indoor radio communication
systems and radio local area networks in the frequency range
300 MHz to 100 Ghz. P Series Radio wave propagation,
Electronic Publication, Geneva, June 2017.
[31] C. Lorne Liechty, Path Loss Measurements and Model Analysis
of a 2.4 GHz Wireless Network in an Outdoor Environment,
Thesis, Georgia Institute of Technology, August, 2007.
[32] Y. Niu, Y. Li, D. Jin, L. Su, and A. Vasilakos, Survey of milli-
meter wave communications (Mmwave) for 5 G: Opportunities
and challenges. Wireless Networks, Springer US, 2015. pp.
1–20
[33] L. Lu, X. Zhang, R. Funada, C. S. Sum, and H. Harada, Selection
of modulation and coding schemes of single carrier PHY for
802.11 ad multi-gigabit mmWave WLAN systems, in 2011 IEEE
Symposium on Computers and Communications (ISCC), 2011,
pp. 348–352.
[34] J. Doble, Introduction to radio propagation for fixed and mobile
communications. Boston, U.S.A.: Artech House, 1996.
[35] M. Umehira, “Research and development of broadband
wireless access technologies,” NTT Tech. Rev., vol. 2, no. 1,
2004, pp. 12–20.
Authenticated | agsreedevi@gmail.com author's copy
Download Date | 1/17/19 6:10 AM