Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
II. Measurements
A. Measurement System
The measurement system is a dual-band, single-
input/multiple-output (SIMO) system that transmits
an L-band and a C-band signal simultaneously. Two
receivers in each band are spatially separated to allow
evaluation of antenna diversity. The complete system
(two transmitters plus four receivers) is termed a
channel sounder. The sounder was custom
manufactured by Berkeley Varitronics, Inc. [5],
(a) (b)
according to specifications developed by the author
and NASA GRC. Figure 1. Measurement System Components
The transmitters were located at the GS and the
four receivers were on the aircraft (see Figure 1(a)).
Figure 1(b) shows the transportable tower and
antenna mast (both antennas at height ~ 20 m). Both
transmitters send a direct-sequence spread spectrum
signal, with chip rate 5 Mcps at L-band, and 50 Mcps
at C-band, corresponding to delay resolutions of 200
ns and 20 ns, respectively. The receivers are stepped
correlators, which allow us to obtain estimates of the
AG channel impulse response (CIR).
The center frequency at C-band was 5060 MHz,
and that for L-band was 968 MHz. Transmit power
for both bands is 10 watts. A high-power amplifier of
gain 7 dB, and a 30 dB low noise amplifier (LNA)
are employed in C-band; a 15.5 dB gain LNA is also (a)
used at L-band. The GS antennas have gains of 6 dB
for C-band, 5 dB for L-band, and elevation/azimuth
beamwidths are approximately 40/70 for C-band,
85/60 for L-band. Aircraft monopole antennas are
nearly omnidirectional in azimuth, with gain 5 dB.
B. Measurement Site
The measurement flight was conducted over
Lake Erie near downtown Cleveland on 22 October
2013. The GS was located at 4129'33.8" N,
81 44'5.48" W with elevation (AMSL) of 177.4 m.
The GS antennas were elevated 20 m above the
ground by the transportable tower (Figure 1).
Figure 2 shows photos of the measurement
environment. ((a) aircraft view from south, looking
toward GS, Lake Erie and downtown Cleveland; (b) (b)
aircraft east view from aircraft along coastline; and
K1-2
(c)
Figure 2. Photo of Measurement Environment (b)
The GS antennas were oriented to 352 from Figure 3. GS and Aircraft Flight Routes FT2
geographic north in azimuth, with zero elevation (Straight, Orange) and FT4 (Oval, Green)
angles. The water level of Lake Erie is on average FT2 is a straight flight path toward the GS from
174 m above sea level. 29,350 m to 2,511 m (972 m in L-band, since we
The aircraft flew both straight paths toward and restrict analysis here to signals within the antenna
away from the GS, and also oval-shaped paths with main beams). The elevation angle ranges from 1.4 to
the oval major axis perpendicular to the straight line 13 degrees. The average altitude difference between
from GS to oval center. The flight altitude was kept GS and aircraft antennas is 566.3 m, with maximum
approximately constant. Each path for which AG 578.2 m and minimum 553.7 m.
channel measurement data was taken is denoted a FT4 is an oval shaped path with link distance
flight track (FT). In this paper we present results only ranging from 16.314 km to 21.764 km. The elevation
from one FT of each type. Figure 3 shows the two angle ranges from 1.7 to 2.2 degrees. The average
FTs we address in, (a) Earth-Centered Earth-Fixed altitude difference between GS and aircraft antennas
(ECEF) coordinates; (b) Google Maps. is 567.4 m with maximum 578.4 m and minimum
. 555.2 m.
ClevelandOH***10-22-2013***FT2&4
6
III. Measurement Results
x 10
In this section we present results for propagation
4.23
path loss, root-mean square delay spread, and
correlation between the signals on antennas in the
4.22
two bands. We also show the effect of nearby large
buildings from downtown Cleveland. To obtain
Z
4.21
results strictly pertinent to the freshwater coastal
Tx (Ground)
4.2
Rx (Aircraft) setting alone (without the nearby urban center), we
-4.71 Rx (Aircraft)
Large RMS-DS
remove in post-processing multipath components
7
6
-4.72 Rx start point
6.9 (MPCs) attributable to reflections from the Cleveland
x 10 Rx end point
-4.73
6.8 x 10
5
urban center. We do provide some example results
-4.74
Y 6.7
X with the urban MPCs, for illustration. As we will
show, even when the long-delay MPCs from the
(a) urban center are removed, MPCs due to smaller
structures near the lake coast are still present in many
CIRs.
K1-3
A. Path Loss 150
ClevelandOH***10-22-2013***FT2***C-band Rxs
C-band Rx1
Path loss is computed using known transmit 145 C-band Rx2
power, antenna gains, and cable losses. Measured Free Space PL
140
received power for each receiver is logged, and via a Two Ray
K1-4
150
ClevelandOH***10-22-2013***FT4***C-band Rxs The RMS-DS essentially measures the temporal
C-band Rx1 spread of the AG channel impulse response, and here
C-band Rx2 we primarily report on the instantaneous values.
145
Average Path Loss (dB)
Free Space PL
Two Ray In Figure 8 we show (instantaneous) RMS-DS
140 vs. link distance for the straight FT2. This is before
any post-processing, hence MPCs from large
135 buildings in the nearby downtown Cleveland area
have not been removed (we have applied a moving-
130 average filter to smooth the plots). Since these
urban MPCs are not inherently a part of the over-
125
freshwater channel, two separate analyses should be
16.4 17 18 19 20 21 21.7 done: one for the data with urban MPCs removed,
Link Distance (m)
and one for the data with urban MPCs included.
Figure 6. C-Band Path Loss vs. Distance for FT4 Except for the following example, the results of the
(Oval) latter analysis are not reported here, but will be
ClevelandOH***10-22-2013***FT4***L-band Rxs addressed in a future publication.
140
L-band Rx1 Figure 9 shows a sequence of PDPs (every 20th
135
L-band Rx2
PDP) for the entire flight track with the urban MPCs
Average Path Loss (dB)
Free Space PL
Two Ray included. Numerous MPCs are present for long
130 distances, and their relative delays decrease slightly
as distance increases, in agreement with the
125
geometry. Figure 10 shows the sequence of PDPs for
120
a segment of FT2 for the link distance near 10 km.
Figure 11 illustrates a close-up view of the RMS-DS
115 vs. time. The excess delay of the distant MPCs shown
in Figure 10 is 13.28 microseconds (3984 m) at 10
110
16.4 17 18 19 20 21 21.7 km, it gradually decreases to 13.22 microseconds
Link Distance (m) (3966 m) at 10.32 km, in excellent agreement with
the distance computed by reflection from the large
Figure 7. L-Band Path Loss vs. Distance for FT4
(Oval) buildings in downtown Cleveland.
K1-5
Analyzing the geometry for this Lake Erie
setting, we can estimate that the relative delay of
MPCs from the large buildings in downtown
Cleveland ranges from approximately 9.4 to 18
microseconds over the entire FT2. Based upon this,
we apply a relative delay threshold of 900 ns, and
exclude all MPCs above this threshold for the over-
freshwater AG channel analysis.
ClevelandOH***10-22-2013***FT2***C-band Rx1
80
Measured
70 Moving Averaged 100
Moving Averaged 1000
60
RMS-DS (ns)
50
20
10
0
5 10 15 20 25
Link Distance (km)
1500
Figure 13. Sequence of PDPs for FT2 (Straight)
After Thresholding, C-Band Rx 1
1000
Figure 12 shows the RMS-DS vs. link distance
500
for FT2 after this processing (cf. Fig. 8). Without the
urban MPCs, the RMS-DS is much smaller, reaching
0
a maximum of only approximately 70 ns. In Figure
10 10.05 10.1 10.15 10.2
Link Distance (km)
10.25 10.3 10.35
13 we show the sequence of PDPs for the entire FT2
after the 900 ns delay thresholding. Since the LOS
Figure 11. RMS-DS vs. Link Distance Segment for component (chip) in each PDP is aligned to have a
FT2 (Straight), C-Band Rx 1; Urban MPCs delay of 100 ns (5 chips), the delay range in Figure
Included 13 extends from zero to 1000 ns.
K1-6
The RMS-DS vs. time for the entire oval-shaped
FT4 is shown in Figure 14. Large values are present
only in the middle of the measurement; the aircraft
was making a U-turn during this segmentsee the
blue dotted line in Figure 3(a). The sequence of PDPs
for this large RMS-DS segment is shown in
Figure 15.
4
10
2
10
0
10
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
6
Moving Averaged over 100 PDPs
10
K1-7
10
6
ClevelandOH***10-22-2013***FT4***C-band Rx1Original RMS-DS means of the A vectors. The s denote the standard
deviations of the respective amplitude vectors.
10
4
Element Ak,i (with k=1 or 2 the Rx index) is the
10
2
amplitude sample in the ith delay bin, and each delay
bin is 2 ms here. The vector length n we selected is
10
0
10
4 coefficients that result from different values of n (up
to 10000) do not significantly differ.
Density
2
10
An example histogram of the correlation
10
0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 coefficients between C-band Rx1 and L-band Rx1 is
shown in Figure 19; it is very well modeled as a
Gaussian distribution. Table III lists inter-band
Figure 18. Histogram of RMS-DS for FT4 (Oval)
correlation coefficients. Mean values for each
After Thresholding, C-Band Rx 1
receiver combination are smaller than 0.01, with
Table II. Over Fresh Water RMS-DS Statistics standard deviations less than 0.35 for FT2 and
approximately 0.2 for FT4. The results indicate that
RMS-DS (ns) Mean Max the signals in the two bands are uncorrelated.
Original 73.3
Moving Averaged 2.5
Rx1 9.7 16.2 Correlation Coefficients
Over 100
Normal Mean=0.001 Std=0.20
Moving Averaged 2
14.0
Over 1000
FT2
Original 62.2
1.5
Density
Moving Averaged
Rx2 9.9 17.7
Over 100
Moving Averaged 1
15.3
Over 1000
Original 161.0
0.5
Moving Averaged
Rx1 9.9 119.3
Over 100
Moving Averaged 0
77.3 -0.5 0 0.5
Over 1000 Correlation between C-band Rx1 & L-band Rx1, FT4
FT4
Original 135.8
Moving Averaged
Figure 19. Histogram of Correlation Coefficients
Rx2 10.0 116.6 Between C-Band Rx1 and L-Band Rx1 for FT4
Over 100
Moving Averaged
96.0
(Oval)
Over 1000
Table III. Inter-Band Correlation Statistics
FT2 FT4
C. Inter-band Correlation C1 C1 C2 C2 C1 C1 C2 C2
L1 L2 L1 L2 L1 L2 L1 L2
As shown in Fig. 2, four Rx antennas are mounted
Mean 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
on the bottom of aircraft with a small separation
Standard
(~0.4 m). The LOS signal amplitude correlation deviation
0.33 0.34 0.33 0.34 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20
coefficient between any two antennas in different
bands can be computed as
D. Comparison with Over-Sea Results
EA1 A1 A2 A2
A1 ,A2 = (3) In [10], we reported on results of measurements
A1 A2 taken in the Pacific Ocean near Oxnard, CA, using
where E denotes expectation, the As are vectors of the same measurement system. The over-sea path
LOS signal amplitude samples, and the s are the loss also agreed with the curved earth two-ray model.
K1-8
The over-sea RMS-DS was less than 75 ns, with [4] D. W. Matolak, Air-Ground Channels &
mean near 10 ns, and maximum excess MPC delay Models: Comprehensive Review and Considerations
approximately 460 ns. for Unmanned Aircraft Systems, Proc. IEEE
Aerospace Conference, Big Sky, MT, 3-10 March
Both these environments are very nearly ideal two-
2012.
ray settings since the surface is smooth (relative to
rugged terrain, for example). Our over-freshwater [5] Berkeley Varitronics Systems, website
results showed multiple reflections and larger delay www.bvsystems.com, 12 March 2014.
spreads due to the proximity to downtown Cleveland,
[6] H. V. Hitney, Refractive Effects from VHF to
and it is difficult to remove these entirely from the
EHF Part B: Propagation Models, Advisory Group
data, but further processing to do so is underway. The
for Aerospace Research and Development (AGARD)
inter-band signals are uncorrelated in both over-water
Lecture Series, 1994.
settings.
[7] International Telecommunications Union,
We are working on generating a tapped delay line
Reflection from the Surface of the Earth, Report
(TDL) model for both the over-freshwater and over-
1008-1 (Question 1/5), 1986-1990.
sea settings. Such a model will represent the LOS
component as the first tap, and the earth surface [8] J. D. Parsons, The Mobile Radio Propagation
reflection as the second tap. The third and potentially Channel, 2nd ed., John Wiley & Sons, New York,
fourth taps will be modeled statistically, according to NY, 2000.
measured results for these components relative [9] National Climatic Data Center, website,
power, lifetime, excess delay and probability of www.ncdc.noaa.gov, 20 March 2014.
occurrence.
[10] D. W. Matolak, R. Sun, Initial Results for Air-
IV. Conclusion Ground Channel Measurements & Modeling for
Unmanned Aircraft Systems: Over Sea, Proc. IEEE
In this paper we reported on channel Aerospace Conference, Big Sky, MT, 1-8 March
measurements of the air-ground channel for an over- 2014.
freshwater environment. Two separate frequency
bands at 5060 MHz and 968 MHz were measured.
The curved-earth two-ray model fits the propagation Acknowledgement
path loss very well for link distances from 2.5 to 30 The authors would like to thank the UAS project
km. The RMS-DS in C-band was on average 10 ns team at NASA Glenn Research Center for all their
with maxima 73 ns for the straight flight track and assistance in this work. In particular we extend
161 ns for the oval flight path. The signals in the two special thanks to J. Griner, K. Shalkhauser, R.
bands are uncorrelated. Future work involves Kerczewski, and J. Ishac. Thanks also to Steven H.
additional analysis and processing of the data, and Walker, P.E., for the flight track graphics in Google
development of models for the two over-water air- Maps.
ground channels.
Email Addresses
References matolak@sc.edu
[1] Radio Technical Commission for Aeronautics, sun55@email.sc.edu
website www.rtca.org, 15 March 2014.
[2] International Telecommunications Union,
website, www.itu.int, 14 March 2014. 2014 Integrated Communications Navigation
and Surveillance (ICNS) Conference
[3] International Civil Aviation Organization,
website, www.icao.int, 14 March 2014. April 8-10, 2014
K1-9