Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
00, 2016 1
5
4 :Abstract—A fast far-field approximation (FAFFA), which is sim-
6 ple to use, is applied to groundwave propagation modeling from
7 a nonpenetrable surface with both soft and hard boundaries. The
8 results are validated against available reference models as well as
9 compared to other numerical methods such as split step parabolic
of
10 equation model and the method of moments.
11 Index Terms—Fast far-field approximation (FAFFA), ground-
12 wave propagation, irregular terrain, knife edge, method of mo-
13 ments (MoM), split step parabolic equation (SSPE), two-ray (2Ray)
14 model.
I. INTRODUCTION
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
G ROUNDWAVE propagation has long been an important
option for medium- and long-range communications
at medium frequency (MF) (0.3–3 MHz) and high frequency
(HF) (3–30 MHz) bands. Classical MF/HF broadcast and com-
munication systems, HF/VHF radars, intelligent transportation
systems, etc., require an understanding of propagation char-
acteristics over the Earth’s surface along realistic propagation
ro Fig. 1. Groundwave propagation scenario over irregular terrain using a
FAFFA. Horizontal field profile is above ground zero. Here, p and p are the
centers of the pth and p th groups, respectively. The FF and NF contribution of
the pth group are also shown.
33 alytical approximate models such as the ray method [1], the terrain can also be used for this calculation. 51
34 mixed-path model [2], and the mode method [3] (note that The mathematical model of this scenario is given by the wave 52
35 a free package, GRWAVE, mentioned there, is available at equation [5] 53
36 http://www.itu.int/oth/R0A0400000F/en). Numerical methods
such as parabolic equation model (PEM) and method of mo-
37
∂2 ∂2
38 ments (MoM) have also been used extensively for the last few + + k2 ψ(z, x) = 0 (1)
∂z 2 ∂x2
Manuscript received October 25, 2016; accepted November 29, 2016. Date
of publication; date of current version. where z and x are the longitudinal and vertical coordinates, 54
G. Apaydin is with Electromagnetic Consulting, Gaziantep 27560, Turkey respectively, k is the free-space wavenumber, and the wave 55
(e-mail: g.apaydin@gmail.com).
C.-C. Lu is with the Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, Uni- function ψ(z, x) represents the electric and magnetic fields for 56
versity of Kentucky, Lexington, KY 40506 USA (e-mail: cclu@engr.uky.edu). the horizontal and vertical polarizations, respectively. Here, the 57
L. Sevgi is with the Department of Electrical and Electronics Engineering, electric/magnetic field has only one nonzero component Ey /Hy 58
Okan University, Istanbul 34959, Turkey (e-mail: levent.sevgi@okan.edu.tr).
W. C. Chew is with the Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, for horizontal/vertical polarization, respectively. The boundary 59
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Urbana, IL 61801 USA (e-mail: condition (BC) along x → ∞ and z → ±∞ satisfies the radia- 60
w-chew@uiuc.edu). tion condition, and both the Dirichlet BC and Neumann BC are 61
Color versions of one or more of the figures in this letter are available online
at http://ieeexplore.ieee.org. taken into consideration at the PEC surface for horizontal and 62
Digital Object Identifier 10.1109/LAWP.2016.2636802 vertical polarizations, respectively. 63
1536-1225 © 2016 IEEE. Personal use is permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission.
See http://www.ieee.org/publications standards/publications/rights/index.html for more information.
2 IEEE ANTENNAS AND WIRELESS PROPAGATION LETTERS, VOL. 00, NO. 00, 2016
64 The simplest propagation scenario used in analytical model- The solution of MoM is time-consuming as the number of 104
65 ing is the flat earth with PEC surface under line source excitation. segments increases for long range and/or high-frequency prop- 105
66 The total field at the observer is simply obtained via vector ad- agation problems. For example, N = 100 000 for 100 km 2-D 106
67 dition of direct and ground-reflected rays. This model is called flat-earth scenario at 30 MHz. Direct solution of matrix inversion 107
68 two-ray (2Ray) model [15]. requires O(N 3 ) operations. On the other hand, unknowns can 108
69 On the single knife-edge problem, the ray summation ap- be iteratively solved for using conjugate gradient method with a 109
70 proach is based on the construction of four different rays, related computational complexity of O(N 2 ) per iteration. Fast iterative 110
71 reflection, and diffraction coefficients using Fresnel integrals solvers have been developed to speed up the matrix-vector prod- 111
72 [15]. uct operation. This letter applies the fast far-field approximation 112
(FAFFA) to accelerate the iterative solution [21], [22]. 113
73 II. MOM-BASED GROUNDWAVE PROPAGATION
III. FAFFA-BASED GROUNDWAVE PROPAGATION 114
74 An MoM technique can be used to find propagation of hori-
of
75 zontally and vertically polarized waves by using the electric field Consider EFIE given in (5), first, N unknowns are divided 115
76 integral equation (EFIE) and the magnetic field integral equation into groups with M unknowns 116
77 (MFIE), respectively [16]–[19]. Open region propagation over
N /M
78 irregular ground has been successfully modeled with MoM [8], Am n un = uinc (rm ) , m ∈ Gp , p = 1, 2, . . . , N/M.
79 [20]. In the classical MoM, the integral equation is converted p =1 n ∈G p
80 to the corresponding matrix equation via the discretization of (7)
81 the surface. Then, an N × N system of equations is constructed Here, Gp and Gp denote groups p and p , respectively (see 117
82
83
84
85
and solved numerically [15].
The total field for EFIE is
u (r) = u (r) −
(1)
inc i
4 S ∂n
∂u (r ) (1)
ro
H0 (k |r − r |) dr (2)
i
4
Δsn un
p ∈FF n ∈G p
2 eik r n m
√
πi krn m
118
119
120
EP
86
normal unit vector. “ˆ” here implies unit vectors. The total field i (1)
87 + Δsn un H0 (krn m ) = uinc (rm ) (8)
88 on the surface is zero for horizontal polarization; therefore, 4
p ∈NF n ∈G p
89 placing r on the surface leads to an integral equation of the first
90 order for horizontal polarization as follows: where Δsn is the segment length, r n m = r n p + r p p + r pm . 121
Under rp p rn p and rp p rpm , the FF contribution is ap- 122
i (1) ∂u (r )
H0 (k |r − r |) dr = uinc (r) . (3) proximated by [22] 123
4 S ∂n ⎛ ⎞
Q1 91 The discretized form of (4) is ⎜ ⎛ ⎞⎟
⎜ ⎟
N ⎜ ⎜ ⎟⎟
⎜ ⎜ ⎟ ⎟
Am n un = uinc (rm ) ⎜ ⎟
(4) ⎜eik r̂ p p ·rp m ⎜
⎜
i ik r p p
Δs ik r̂ p p ·r n p ⎟⎟
⎟
IEE
⎜ e u e .
⎟⎟
n n
n =1 ⎜ 8πkrp p
p ∈FF⎜ ⎝ n ∈G p ⎠ ⎟
⎜
⎟
92 where A is the N × N impedance matrix of the ground. Solution ⎜ ⎟
⎝ Aggregation ⎠
93 of this system yields the unknown segment currents. Superposi-
94 tion of the contributions of the segment currents via the Green’s
Translation
95 function of the problem yields the ground-scattered field. Fi- Disaggregation
96 nally, the total field is obtained by adding the incident field. (9)
97 The total field for MFIE is described as Equation (9) has three steps. The first step, aggregation, com- 124
putes the total field at a group center from the subscatterers of the 125
i ∂ (1)
u (r) = u (r) +
inc
u (r ) H (k |r − r |) dr (5)
4 S ∂n 0 group. The second step translates the field from one group center 126
to another. Then, the third step, disaggregation, distributes the 127
98 and placing r on the surface, the integral equation of the second field at another group center to each subscatterers of the group 128
99 order for vertical polarization is obtained as [23]. Fig. 2 shows the CPU time growth of classical MoM and 129
u (r) i ∂ (1) FAFFA per iteration with the number of unknowns (N ). The data 130
− p.v. u (r ) H0 (k |r − r |) dr = uinc (r) .
2 4 S ∂n for this figure are simulated on an Intel Core i5 CPU at 2.5 GHz. 131
(6) The classical MoM may be more efficient for small problems 132
100 Here, the unknown u (r ) is available instead of ∂u (r ) /∂n, (e.g., when N is less than a thousand). In order to further reduce 133
101 and p.v. means the Cauchy principal value of the integral. the computational cost, interpolation and smoothing techniques 134
102 Note that 25λ to 30λ additional surface length is enough for are used for aggregation and disaggregation steps, respectively. 135
103 infinite surface assumption in the MoM-based application. Hence, the computational complexity is of O(N 4/3 ) and the 136
APAYDIN et al.: GROUNDWAVE PROPAGATION MODEL USING A FAFFA 3
of
Fig. 2. CPU time growth of classical MoM and FAFFA per iteration as the
number of unknowns is increased. Fig. 5. Field versus height at two specified ranges using FAFFA, SSPE, and
4Ray models (horizontal polarization, f = 30 MHz, nonpenetrable flat surface
with 100-m-high knife edge at 800-m range illuminated by a line source at
200 m height, Δs = λ/10, N = 2300, M = 14 for FAFFA, Δz = 10 m, Δx
= 0.5 m, X max = 2000 m for SSPE).
ro
EP
Fig. 3. Field versus range at 8-m height using FAFFA, SSPE, and 2Ray models
(vertical polarization, f = 10 MHz, nonpenetrable flat surface illuminated by
a line source at 100 m height, Δs = λ/10, N = 20 600, M = 28 for FAFFA,
Δz = 40 m, Δx = 0.5 m, X max = 5000 m for SSPE).
IEE
Fig. 6. Field versus range at 8 m height above local terrain using FAFFA
and SSPE models (vertical polarization, f = 10 MHz, nonpenetrable Gaussian
surface with 100- and 500-m heights illuminated by a line source at 100 m
height, Δs = λ/10, N = 13 600, M = 24 for FAFFA, Δz = 20 m, Δx = 0.5
m, X max = 5000 m for SSPE).
Fig. 4. Field versus range at 30-m height using FAFFA, two-way SSPE, and agation over PEC flat earth is taken into account where the field 142
4Ray models (horizontal polarization, f = 10 MHz, nonpenetrable flat surface at a chosen observer for a given source location is simply formed 143
with 90-m-high knife edge at 12 km range illuminated by a line source at
100 m height, Δs = λ/10, N = 6600, M = 19 for FAFFA, Δz = 40 m, Δx
by the addition of direct and ground-reflected rays. This is called 144
= 0.5 m, X max = 3000 m for SSPE). 2Ray model. Fig. 3 shows field versus range variation. Here, the 145
results of the well-known split step parabolic equation (SSPE) 146
model are also included. The computations were performed us- 147
137 total field memory requirement is of O(N ) for M = N 1/3 [22],
ing MATLAB-based free codes given in [15]. As observed, very 148
138 [23].
good agreement is obtained among the three models. 149
The second example used in tests and comparisons is the 150
139 IV. NUMERICAL EXAMPLES AND COMPARISONS
knife-edge problem and the 4Ray model (see [15, Sec. 12.6] 151
140 The new FAFFA-based groundwave propagation model has for this model and free MATLAB codes). Figs. 4 and 5 be- 152
141 been tested against various scenarios and calibrated. First, prop- long to this scenario. A 90-m-high knife edge is located at a 153
4 IEEE ANTENNAS AND WIRELESS PROPAGATION LETTERS, VOL. 00, NO. 00, 2016
REFERENCES 190
[1] K. A. Norton, “The propagation of radio waves over the surface of the 191
earth and in the upper atmosphere-Part I,” Proc. Inst. Radio Eng., vol. 24, 192
no. 10, pp. 1367–1387, Oct. 1936. 193
[2] G. Millington, “Ground-wave propagation over an inhomogeneous smooth 194
earth,” Proc. IEE (London), vol. 96, no. 39, pp. 53–64, Jan. 1949. 195
[3] J. R. Wait, Electromagnetic Waves in Stratified Media. New York, NY, 196
USA: Pergamon, 1962. 197
[4] ITU-R, Recommendations P-368–9, “Groundwave Propagation Curves 198
of
for Frequencies between 10 kHz and 30 MHz,” International Telecommu- 199
nications Union, Geneva, Switzerland, Feb. 2007. 200 Q2
[5] M. F. Levy, Parabolic Equation Methods for Electromagnetic Wave Prop- 201
agation. London, U.K.: IEE, 2000. 202
[6] L. Sevgi and L. B. Felsen, “A new algorithm for ground wave propagation 203
based on a hybrid ray-mode approach,” Int. J. Numer. Model., vol. 11, 204
no. 2, pp. 87–103, Mar. 1998. 205
[7] L. Sevgi, F. Akleman, and L. B. Felsen, “Groundwave propagation model- 206
Fig. 7. Field versus range at 8-m height above local terrain using FAFFA ing: Problem-matched analytical formulations and direct numerical tech- 207
and SSPE models (vertical polarization, f = 10 MHz, nonpenetrable irregular niques,” IEEE Antennas Propag. Mag., vol. 44, no. 1, pp. 55–75, Feb. 208
154
155
156
157
158
ro
surface illuminated by a line source at 100 m height, Δs = λ/10, N = 15 600,
M = 25 for FAFFA, Δz = 20 m, Δx = 0.5 m, X max = 5000 m for SSPE).
169 heights (100 and 500 m) are located at a distance of 20 km. The 1260, Apr. 2011. 233
170 line source’s height is also 100 m. As observed, FAFFA results [15] L. Sevgi, Electromagnetic Modeling and Simulation. Piscataway, NJ, 234
USA: IEEE Press, 2014. 235
171 are in very good agreement with the SSPE results. [16] R. F. Harrington, Field Computation by Moment Method. New York, NY, 236
172 The last example presented in Fig. 7 belongs to an arbitrary- USA: IEEE Press, 1993 (1st ed. 1968). 237
173 shaped irregular terrain profile. As observed, the agreement be- [17] J. T. Johnson, “On the canonical grid method for two-dimensional scatter- 238
ing problems,” IEEE Trans. Antennas Propag., vol. 46, no. 3, pp. 297–302, 239
174 tween FAFFA and SSPE is very good. Mar. 1998. 240
[18] E. Arvas and L. Sevgi, “A tutorial on the method of moments,” IEEE 241
Antennas Propag. Mag., vol. 54, no. 3, pp. 260–275, Jun. 2012. 242
175 V. CONCLUSION [19] G. Apaydin, F. Hacivelioglu, L. Sevgi, and P. Y. Ufimtsev, “Wedge 243
diffracted waves excited by a line source: Method of moments (MoM) 244
176 A FAFFA-based groundwave propagation model, which is modeling of fringe waves,” IEEE Trans. Antennas Propag., vol. 62, no. 8, 245
177 easy to apply, is introduced and tested against various propa- pp. 4368–4371, Aug. 2014. 246
178 gation models with and without analytical reference solutions. [20] C. Brennan and J. Cullen, “Application of the fast far-field approximation 247
to the computation of UHF path loss over irregular terrain,” IEEE Trans. 248
179 The FAFFA-based model is very promising in terms of accuracy, Antennas Propag., vol. 46, no. 6, pp. 881–890, Jun. 1998. 249
180 memory requirements, and computation times. It is also much [21] W. C. Chew, T. J. Cui, and J. M. Song, “A FAFFA-MLFMA algorithm 250
181 simpler than the multilevel fast multipole algorithm [21]–[23]. for electromagnetic scattering,” IEEE Trans. Antennas Propag., vol. 50, 251
no. 11, pp. 1641–1649, Nov. 2002. 252
182 Although the SSPE model is useful and fast for long-range [22] C. C. Lu and W. C. Chew, “Fast far field approximation for calculating 253
183 groundwave propagation analysis, there are some drawbacks the RCS of large objects,” Microw. Opt. Technol. Lett., vol. 8, no. 5, 254
184 such as the introduction of nonphysical fluctuations caused by pp. 238–241, Apr. 1995. 255
[23] W. C. Chew, J. M. Jin, E. Michielssen, and J. M. Song, Fast and Effi- 256
185 the incorporation of an upper boundary and the inability of the cient Algorithms in Computational Electromagnetics. Boston, MA, USA: 257
186 model to calculate waves having propagation angles greater than Artech House, 2001. 258
QUERIES 259
Q1. Author: Please confirm if “(4)” is the correct equation number in line 90 since the equation directly below it is numbered as 260
“(4)”. 261
Q2. Author: Please check whether Ref. [4] is ok as set. 262
of
ro
EP
IEE
IEEE ANTENNAS AND WIRELESS PROPAGATION LETTERS, VOL. 00, NO. 00, 2016 1
5
4 :Abstract—A fast far-field approximation (FAFFA), which is sim-
6 ple to use, is applied to groundwave propagation modeling from
7 a nonpenetrable surface with both soft and hard boundaries. The
8 results are validated against available reference models as well as
9 compared to other numerical methods such as split step parabolic
of
10 equation model and the method of moments.
11 Index Terms—Fast far-field approximation (FAFFA), ground-
12 wave propagation, irregular terrain, knife edge, method of mo-
13 ments (MoM), split step parabolic equation (SSPE), two-ray (2Ray)
14 model.
I. INTRODUCTION
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
G ROUNDWAVE propagation has long been an important
option for medium- and long-range communications
at medium frequency (MF) (0.3–3 MHz) and high frequency
(HF) (3–30 MHz) bands. Classical MF/HF broadcast and com-
munication systems, HF/VHF radars, intelligent transportation
systems, etc., require an understanding of propagation char-
acteristics over the Earth’s surface along realistic propagation
ro Fig. 1. Groundwave propagation scenario over irregular terrain using a
FAFFA. Horizontal field profile is above ground zero. Here, p and p are the
centers of the pth and p th groups, respectively. The FF and NF contribution of
the pth group are also shown.
33 alytical approximate models such as the ray method [1], the terrain can also be used for this calculation. 51
34 mixed-path model [2], and the mode method [3] (note that The mathematical model of this scenario is given by the wave 52
35 a free package, GRWAVE, mentioned there, is available at equation [5] 53
36 http://www.itu.int/oth/R0A0400000F/en). Numerical methods
such as parabolic equation model (PEM) and method of mo-
37
∂2 ∂2
38 ments (MoM) have also been used extensively for the last few + + k2 ψ(z, x) = 0 (1)
∂z 2 ∂x2
Manuscript received October 25, 2016; accepted November 29, 2016. Date
of publication; date of current version. where z and x are the longitudinal and vertical coordinates, 54
G. Apaydin is with Electromagnetic Consulting, Gaziantep 27560, Turkey respectively, k is the free-space wavenumber, and the wave 55
(e-mail: g.apaydin@gmail.com).
C.-C. Lu is with the Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, Uni- function ψ(z, x) represents the electric and magnetic fields for 56
versity of Kentucky, Lexington, KY 40506 USA (e-mail: cclu@engr.uky.edu). the horizontal and vertical polarizations, respectively. Here, the 57
L. Sevgi is with the Department of Electrical and Electronics Engineering, electric/magnetic field has only one nonzero component Ey /Hy 58
Okan University, Istanbul 34959, Turkey (e-mail: levent.sevgi@okan.edu.tr).
W. C. Chew is with the Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, for horizontal/vertical polarization, respectively. The boundary 59
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Urbana, IL 61801 USA (e-mail: condition (BC) along x → ∞ and z → ±∞ satisfies the radia- 60
w-chew@uiuc.edu). tion condition, and both the Dirichlet BC and Neumann BC are 61
Color versions of one or more of the figures in this letter are available online
at http://ieeexplore.ieee.org. taken into consideration at the PEC surface for horizontal and 62
Digital Object Identifier 10.1109/LAWP.2016.2636802 vertical polarizations, respectively. 63
1536-1225 © 2016 IEEE. Personal use is permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission.
See http://www.ieee.org/publications standards/publications/rights/index.html for more information.
2 IEEE ANTENNAS AND WIRELESS PROPAGATION LETTERS, VOL. 00, NO. 00, 2016
64 The simplest propagation scenario used in analytical model- The solution of MoM is time-consuming as the number of 104
65 ing is the flat earth with PEC surface under line source excitation. segments increases for long range and/or high-frequency prop- 105
66 The total field at the observer is simply obtained via vector ad- agation problems. For example, N = 100 000 for 100 km 2-D 106
67 dition of direct and ground-reflected rays. This model is called flat-earth scenario at 30 MHz. Direct solution of matrix inversion 107
68 two-ray (2Ray) model [15]. requires O(N 3 ) operations. On the other hand, unknowns can 108
69 On the single knife-edge problem, the ray summation ap- be iteratively solved for using conjugate gradient method with a 109
70 proach is based on the construction of four different rays, related computational complexity of O(N 2 ) per iteration. Fast iterative 110
71 reflection, and diffraction coefficients using Fresnel integrals solvers have been developed to speed up the matrix-vector prod- 111
72 [15]. uct operation. This letter applies the fast far-field approximation 112
(FAFFA) to accelerate the iterative solution [21], [22]. 113
73 II. MOM-BASED GROUNDWAVE PROPAGATION
III. FAFFA-BASED GROUNDWAVE PROPAGATION 114
74 An MoM technique can be used to find propagation of hori-
of
75 zontally and vertically polarized waves by using the electric field Consider EFIE given in (5), first, N unknowns are divided 115
76 integral equation (EFIE) and the magnetic field integral equation into groups with M unknowns 116
77 (MFIE), respectively [16]–[19]. Open region propagation over
N /M
78 irregular ground has been successfully modeled with MoM [8], Am n un = uinc (rm ) , m ∈ Gp , p = 1, 2, . . . , N/M.
79 [20]. In the classical MoM, the integral equation is converted p =1 n ∈G p
80 to the corresponding matrix equation via the discretization of (7)
81 the surface. Then, an N × N system of equations is constructed Here, Gp and Gp denote groups p and p , respectively (see 117
82
83
84
85
and solved numerically [15].
The total field for EFIE is
u (r) = u (r) −
(1)
inc i
4 S ∂n
∂u (r ) (1)
ro
H0 (k |r − r |) dr (2)
i
4
Δsn un
p ∈FF n ∈G p
2 eik r n m
√
πi krn m
118
119
120
EP
86
normal unit vector. “ˆ” here implies unit vectors. The total field i (1)
87 + Δsn un H0 (krn m ) = uinc (rm ) (8)
88 on the surface is zero for horizontal polarization; therefore, 4
p ∈NF n ∈G p
89 placing r on the surface leads to an integral equation of the first
90 order for horizontal polarization as follows: where Δsn is the segment length, r n m = r n p + r p p + r pm . 121
Under rp p rn p and rp p rpm , the FF contribution is ap- 122
i (1) ∂u (r )
H0 (k |r − r |) dr = uinc (r) . (3) proximated by [22] 123
4 S ∂n ⎛ ⎞
Q1 91 The discretized form of (4) is ⎜ ⎛ ⎞⎟
⎜ ⎟
N ⎜ ⎜ ⎟⎟
⎜ ⎜ ⎟ ⎟
Am n un = uinc (rm ) ⎜ ⎟
(4) ⎜eik r̂ p p ·rp m ⎜
⎜
i ik r p p
Δs ik r̂ p p ·r n p ⎟⎟
⎟
IEE
⎜ e u e .
⎟⎟
n n
n =1 ⎜ 8πkrp p
p ∈FF⎜ ⎝ n ∈G p ⎠ ⎟
⎜
⎟
92 where A is the N × N impedance matrix of the ground. Solution ⎜ ⎟
⎝ Aggregation ⎠
93 of this system yields the unknown segment currents. Superposi-
94 tion of the contributions of the segment currents via the Green’s
Translation
95 function of the problem yields the ground-scattered field. Fi- Disaggregation
96 nally, the total field is obtained by adding the incident field. (9)
97 The total field for MFIE is described as Equation (9) has three steps. The first step, aggregation, com- 124
putes the total field at a group center from the subscatterers of the 125
i ∂ (1)
u (r) = u (r) +
inc
u (r ) H (k |r − r |) dr (5)
4 S ∂n 0 group. The second step translates the field from one group center 126
to another. Then, the third step, disaggregation, distributes the 127
98 and placing r on the surface, the integral equation of the second field at another group center to each subscatterers of the group 128
99 order for vertical polarization is obtained as [23]. Fig. 2 shows the CPU time growth of classical MoM and 129
u (r) i ∂ (1) FAFFA per iteration with the number of unknowns (N ). The data 130
− p.v. u (r ) H0 (k |r − r |) dr = uinc (r) .
2 4 S ∂n for this figure are simulated on an Intel Core i5 CPU at 2.5 GHz. 131
(6) The classical MoM may be more efficient for small problems 132
100 Here, the unknown u (r ) is available instead of ∂u (r ) /∂n, (e.g., when N is less than a thousand). In order to further reduce 133
101 and p.v. means the Cauchy principal value of the integral. the computational cost, interpolation and smoothing techniques 134
102 Note that 25λ to 30λ additional surface length is enough for are used for aggregation and disaggregation steps, respectively. 135
103 infinite surface assumption in the MoM-based application. Hence, the computational complexity is of O(N 4/3 ) and the 136
APAYDIN et al.: GROUNDWAVE PROPAGATION MODEL USING A FAFFA 3
of
Fig. 2. CPU time growth of classical MoM and FAFFA per iteration as the
number of unknowns is increased. Fig. 5. Field versus height at two specified ranges using FAFFA, SSPE, and
4Ray models (horizontal polarization, f = 30 MHz, nonpenetrable flat surface
with 100-m-high knife edge at 800-m range illuminated by a line source at
200 m height, Δs = λ/10, N = 2300, M = 14 for FAFFA, Δz = 10 m, Δx
= 0.5 m, X max = 2000 m for SSPE).
ro
EP
Fig. 3. Field versus range at 8-m height using FAFFA, SSPE, and 2Ray models
(vertical polarization, f = 10 MHz, nonpenetrable flat surface illuminated by
a line source at 100 m height, Δs = λ/10, N = 20 600, M = 28 for FAFFA,
Δz = 40 m, Δx = 0.5 m, X max = 5000 m for SSPE).
IEE
Fig. 6. Field versus range at 8 m height above local terrain using FAFFA
and SSPE models (vertical polarization, f = 10 MHz, nonpenetrable Gaussian
surface with 100- and 500-m heights illuminated by a line source at 100 m
height, Δs = λ/10, N = 13 600, M = 24 for FAFFA, Δz = 20 m, Δx = 0.5
m, X max = 5000 m for SSPE).
Fig. 4. Field versus range at 30-m height using FAFFA, two-way SSPE, and agation over PEC flat earth is taken into account where the field 142
4Ray models (horizontal polarization, f = 10 MHz, nonpenetrable flat surface at a chosen observer for a given source location is simply formed 143
with 90-m-high knife edge at 12 km range illuminated by a line source at
100 m height, Δs = λ/10, N = 6600, M = 19 for FAFFA, Δz = 40 m, Δx
by the addition of direct and ground-reflected rays. This is called 144
= 0.5 m, X max = 3000 m for SSPE). 2Ray model. Fig. 3 shows field versus range variation. Here, the 145
results of the well-known split step parabolic equation (SSPE) 146
model are also included. The computations were performed us- 147
137 total field memory requirement is of O(N ) for M = N 1/3 [22],
ing MATLAB-based free codes given in [15]. As observed, very 148
138 [23].
good agreement is obtained among the three models. 149
The second example used in tests and comparisons is the 150
139 IV. NUMERICAL EXAMPLES AND COMPARISONS
knife-edge problem and the 4Ray model (see [15, Sec. 12.6] 151
140 The new FAFFA-based groundwave propagation model has for this model and free MATLAB codes). Figs. 4 and 5 be- 152
141 been tested against various scenarios and calibrated. First, prop- long to this scenario. A 90-m-high knife edge is located at a 153
4 IEEE ANTENNAS AND WIRELESS PROPAGATION LETTERS, VOL. 00, NO. 00, 2016
REFERENCES 190
[1] K. A. Norton, “The propagation of radio waves over the surface of the 191
earth and in the upper atmosphere-Part I,” Proc. Inst. Radio Eng., vol. 24, 192
no. 10, pp. 1367–1387, Oct. 1936. 193
[2] G. Millington, “Ground-wave propagation over an inhomogeneous smooth 194
earth,” Proc. IEE (London), vol. 96, no. 39, pp. 53–64, Jan. 1949. 195
[3] J. R. Wait, Electromagnetic Waves in Stratified Media. New York, NY, 196
USA: Pergamon, 1962. 197
[4] ITU-R, Recommendations P-368–9, “Groundwave Propagation Curves 198
of
for Frequencies between 10 kHz and 30 MHz,” International Telecommu- 199
nications Union, Geneva, Switzerland, Feb. 2007. 200 Q2
[5] M. F. Levy, Parabolic Equation Methods for Electromagnetic Wave Prop- 201
agation. London, U.K.: IEE, 2000. 202
[6] L. Sevgi and L. B. Felsen, “A new algorithm for ground wave propagation 203
based on a hybrid ray-mode approach,” Int. J. Numer. Model., vol. 11, 204
no. 2, pp. 87–103, Mar. 1998. 205
[7] L. Sevgi, F. Akleman, and L. B. Felsen, “Groundwave propagation model- 206
Fig. 7. Field versus range at 8-m height above local terrain using FAFFA ing: Problem-matched analytical formulations and direct numerical tech- 207
and SSPE models (vertical polarization, f = 10 MHz, nonpenetrable irregular niques,” IEEE Antennas Propag. Mag., vol. 44, no. 1, pp. 55–75, Feb. 208
154
155
156
157
158
ro
surface illuminated by a line source at 100 m height, Δs = λ/10, N = 15 600,
M = 25 for FAFFA, Δz = 20 m, Δx = 0.5 m, X max = 5000 m for SSPE).
169 heights (100 and 500 m) are located at a distance of 20 km. The 1260, Apr. 2011. 233
170 line source’s height is also 100 m. As observed, FAFFA results [15] L. Sevgi, Electromagnetic Modeling and Simulation. Piscataway, NJ, 234
USA: IEEE Press, 2014. 235
171 are in very good agreement with the SSPE results. [16] R. F. Harrington, Field Computation by Moment Method. New York, NY, 236
172 The last example presented in Fig. 7 belongs to an arbitrary- USA: IEEE Press, 1993 (1st ed. 1968). 237
173 shaped irregular terrain profile. As observed, the agreement be- [17] J. T. Johnson, “On the canonical grid method for two-dimensional scatter- 238
ing problems,” IEEE Trans. Antennas Propag., vol. 46, no. 3, pp. 297–302, 239
174 tween FAFFA and SSPE is very good. Mar. 1998. 240
[18] E. Arvas and L. Sevgi, “A tutorial on the method of moments,” IEEE 241
Antennas Propag. Mag., vol. 54, no. 3, pp. 260–275, Jun. 2012. 242
175 V. CONCLUSION [19] G. Apaydin, F. Hacivelioglu, L. Sevgi, and P. Y. Ufimtsev, “Wedge 243
diffracted waves excited by a line source: Method of moments (MoM) 244
176 A FAFFA-based groundwave propagation model, which is modeling of fringe waves,” IEEE Trans. Antennas Propag., vol. 62, no. 8, 245
177 easy to apply, is introduced and tested against various propa- pp. 4368–4371, Aug. 2014. 246
178 gation models with and without analytical reference solutions. [20] C. Brennan and J. Cullen, “Application of the fast far-field approximation 247
to the computation of UHF path loss over irregular terrain,” IEEE Trans. 248
179 The FAFFA-based model is very promising in terms of accuracy, Antennas Propag., vol. 46, no. 6, pp. 881–890, Jun. 1998. 249
180 memory requirements, and computation times. It is also much [21] W. C. Chew, T. J. Cui, and J. M. Song, “A FAFFA-MLFMA algorithm 250
181 simpler than the multilevel fast multipole algorithm [21]–[23]. for electromagnetic scattering,” IEEE Trans. Antennas Propag., vol. 50, 251
no. 11, pp. 1641–1649, Nov. 2002. 252
182 Although the SSPE model is useful and fast for long-range [22] C. C. Lu and W. C. Chew, “Fast far field approximation for calculating 253
183 groundwave propagation analysis, there are some drawbacks the RCS of large objects,” Microw. Opt. Technol. Lett., vol. 8, no. 5, 254
184 such as the introduction of nonphysical fluctuations caused by pp. 238–241, Apr. 1995. 255
[23] W. C. Chew, J. M. Jin, E. Michielssen, and J. M. Song, Fast and Effi- 256
185 the incorporation of an upper boundary and the inability of the cient Algorithms in Computational Electromagnetics. Boston, MA, USA: 257
186 model to calculate waves having propagation angles greater than Artech House, 2001. 258
QUERIES 259
Q1. Author: Please confirm if “(4)” is the correct equation number in line 90 since the equation directly below it is numbered as 260
“(4)”. 261
Q2. Author: Please check whether Ref. [4] is ok as set. 262
of
ro
EP
IEE