RF Propagation in Short Range Sensor Communications

Mark Dapper, Jeffrey S. Wells, Tony Schwallie, and Leak Huon

L-3 Nova Engineering, Inc. 5 Circle Freeway Drive, Cincinnati, Ohio 45246


ABSTRACT

Short-range RF propagation models with antenna elements placed at or near the earths surface often fail to accurately
predict path loss. Adequate mathematical models can be developed and validated to ensure deployed communication
systems maintain link closure. Specifically, Unattended Ground Sensor (UGS) systems are deployed to be physically
undetected, that is, the units are frequently buried with the antenna extended above earths surface. This paper reviews
the physical effects that determine propagation loss and synthesizes a mathematical model to predict this loss. These
predictions are compared to real world propagation measurements in both open fields and in dense foliage for ranges up
to 500m.

Keywords: RF Propagation, Sensor Communications, VHF/UHF Communications, Antennas at Ground, UGS,
Unattended Ground Sensor, AUMSS, PEWD, TRSS, REMBASS


1. INTRODUCTION

The prediction of path loss is very important for specifying the performance and planning the deployment of
communications devices. Even at close range, the path loss can be considerable as the waveform is absorbed in
vegetation, trees, and other obstacles. Unattended Ground Sensor systems typically have their antenna element located at
or near ground and are deployed over various terrains from smooth hills, plains, dense foliage, as well as a myriad of
other physical attenuating factors along the RF propagation path. Some of these sensor systems include the U.S. Armys
REMBASS, U.S. Armys AUMSS, U.S. Armys PEWD, U.S. Air Forces TASS, and the U.S. Marine Corps TRSS. All
these systems are deployed in a similar manner; that is, they are either hand emplaced or air delivered and are utilized to
detect and analyze enemy troop movement without risk to human life. Understanding the RF propagation characteristics
associated with deploying these devices is key in establishing mission objectives and maintaining link closure.

Figure 1: Tactical Remote Sensor System (TRSS) Repeater/Relay

Several models exist by which to simulate the propagation, differing in their capability and range of application. This
paper targets propagation modeling at ranges of less than 500 meters with antennas mounted on the ground where other
models, such as the Longley - Rice model fall short. (The Longley Rice model is accurate at ranges 1km 2000km and
at antenna heights >0.5 meters).
This paper provides a mathematical model of propagation over a plane reflecting surface and adds a mathematical model
of foliage loss to obtain a predictable loss associated with the terrain of which the unit is fielded. This model is then
compared to field test data to empirically validate the mathematical model.

The paper will begin by establishing the reference and background information inclusive of free space path loss,
propagation near the ground, terrain loss, and foliage loss. After completion of the simulated studies, the paper will
discuss field test results.


2. FREE SPACE PATH LOSS

We begin with the standard equation for propagation in free space
2
. Although free space propagation is rarely
encountered, it provides a basic insight into RF propagation and establishes the lower bound for path loss. Path loss is
given by

=
d f
c
G G
P
P
rx tx
t
r
4
2
. (1)

The free space path loss, L
f,
can be expressed in decibels as
k d f
G
rx
G
tx
L
f
+ + = log 20 log 20 log 10 log 10 , (2)
where f = frequency (Hz)
G
tx
= transmitter antenna gain (linear)
G
rx
= RX Antenna Gain (linear),
d = distance (meters), and
k = 147.6 = 20*log(c/4/)


10
1
10
2
10
3
10
4
-110
-100
-90
-80
-70
-60
-50
-40
-30

Distance in Meters
TX and RX Antenna Gains =0dBi
153 MHz
100 MHz
300 MHz
450 MHz

Figure 2: Free Space Path Loss as a Function of Distance

Free space propagation follow an inverse square law with distance, that is, the received power is reduced by 6 dB when
the range is doubled.

3. PROPAGATION OVER A REFLECTING SURFACE

Figure 3 depicts a simple two ray model for propagation over a flat surface. The signal at the receiver is the vector sum
of the direct and reflected rays. The amplitude and phase of the reflected waves propagating over ground varies with
point of reflection, ground constants such as dielectric constant and conductivity, and polarization
2
. To compute the
effective transmission of the reflected wave we compute the complex reflection coefficient.

Figure 3: Propagation over Reflecting Surface

The reflection coefficient can be calculated as a function of the angle of incidence , as

( ) ( )
( ) ( )

cos
sin
cos
sin
2
2
jx jx
jx jx
r r
r r
+

= (3)
where

f
x

=
10
9
18
, (4)
) (
tan
1
d
h
tx
tx
= , (5)
h
tx
= height of transmitting antenna (meters)
d
tx
= distance to the angle of incidence , and
= Conductivity (Siemens).

The dielectric constants and conductivity vary with respect to the attributes of the earth. Typical values for each of these
are shown in Table 1.

Table 1. Dielectric constant and conductivity

(siemens)
r
Sea Water 5 81
Fresh Water 1 x 10
-2
81
Good Ground (wet) 2 x 10
-2
25-30
Average Ground 5 x 10
-3
15
Poor Ground (dry) 1 x 10
-3
4-7
0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
-1
-0.99
-0.98
-0.97
-0.96
-0.95
-0.94
Antenna Height (meters)
epsilon
r
= 15, sigma = .005, (average ground)
Frequency 153 MHz
epsilon
r
= dielectric constant
sigma = conductivity (siemens)
epsilon
r
= 5, sigma = .001, (poor ground)
epsilon
r
= 27, sigma = .02, (good ground)


Figure 4: Magnitude of the Reflection Coefficient for Smooth Earth

Figure 4 demonstrates that for scenarios of practical interest, the magnitude of the reflection coefficient is close to unity.
Furthermore, the angle of the reflection coefficient for small grazing angles is close to 180 degrees. This results in near-
cancellation of the direct and reflected rays and gives rise to the characteristic inverse R
4
variation of path loss with
distance for antennas close to ground.

The total received field strength, E, associated with the radio waves propagating and reflecting on the earths surface is
given by

= )
2
( 1 exp( 1
4
2
R j
fd
c
G
rx
G
tx
E

, (6)

where

d
hr ht
R
' ' 2
= , (7)
d = distance (meters),
ht= TX antenna height above the earths tangent plane through the point of reflection (m),
hr= RX antenna height above the earths tangent plane through the point of reflection (m),
G
rx
= RX Antenna Gain (linear),
G
tx
= TX Antenna Gain (linear),
= Earth Reflection Coefficient (Vertical),
= wavelength in meters.

If we examine (6) we see that it consists of two terms that modify the natural inverse R
2
characteristic. The first term
represents the direct ray, and the second term, a complex exponential modified by the reflection coefficient.

See Reference (2).

By converting [6] to logarithmic form we can calculate the propagation loss associated with transmitting along a
reflecting surface such as those applications where antenna elements are very near ground as shown in Figure 5. As
illustrated in Figure 5, the propagation loss follows an inverse fourth power law (12 dB for each distance doubled) with
range rather than the inverse square low of free space.

10
1
10
2
10
3
10
4
-180
-160
-140
-120
-100
-80
-60
-40
Total Path Loss (dB)
Distance in Meters
Propagation over Earth (Reflecting)
153 MHz
300 MHz
450 MHz
100 MHz
RX and TX Antenna height = 0.25 meters
Dielectric Constant = 13
Conductivity = 0.012 siemens

Figure 5. Propagation Loss for Transmission Over a Reflecting Surface (earth)

Figure 6 demonstrates the variation of path loss with antenna height at 150 MHz. From [6] we see that increasing
antenna height effectively applies a rotation of the reflected ray relative to the direct ray which reduces the magnitude of
the cancellation of the direct and reflected rays. This effect can be quite dramatic, for example, as much as 12 dB at 150
MHz as the antennas are moved from ground level to an elevation of 0.7 meters.

10
1
10
2
10
3
10
4
-180
-160
-140
-120
-100
-80
-60
-40
-20
Total Path Loss (dB)
Distance in meters
Propagation Over A Plane Reflecting Surface
RX and TX Antenna Heights are Equal
ht=0.7 meters
ht=0.5 meters
ht=0.25 meters
ht=0.1 meters

Figure 6. Propagation Near Ground as Antenna Height Varies
4. SHORT RANGE FOLIAGE LOSS

Loss of the waveform via absorption by trees and vegetation can be substantial. This loss should be accounted for in
deploying communications systems. The loss is mathematically added to the previously calculated losses (propagation
over ground) to determine the overall expected path loss. It is common to call this additional loss the foliage factor.


Figure 7. Propagation in Foliage

As described in Weissberger
3
, the following equation may be applied when the propagation rays are blocked by dense
and leafy trees.

For ranges from 14 to 400 meters the foliage loss in decibels can be modeled as
) )( ( 33 . 1
588 . 0
284 . 0
d
f
f
L
f
= , (8)
and for ranges less than 14 meters
(9) ) )( ( 45 . 0
284 . 0
d
f
f
L
f
=
where d
f
is the distance through the foliage (meters), and f is frequency in GHz.

It should be noted that according to Weissberger
3
, the propagation loss between trees with leaves and trees without
leaves (Summer/Winter) was 3 5 dB. A plot of propagation loss due to foliage is shown in Figure 8.

10
1
10
2
10
3
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
Foliage
Loss (dB)
Distance in Meters
100 MHz
153 MHz
300 MHz
450 MHz

Figure 8. Loss Due to Foliage
The graph indicates that at a transmission frequency of 153 MHz an additional loss of approximately 22dB is predicted
if the dense foliage exists at a depth of 300 meters. When the height of the canopy is less than the distance between
transmitting and receiving antennas, propagation is dominated by diffraction over the top of the canopy. For this reason,
excess foliage losses greater than 20 to 30 dB are not commonly found in practice.

5. PROPAGATION OVER TERRAIN OBSTACLES

Terrain obstacles are responsible for additional path loss. When direct line-of-sight is obstructed, or nearly obstructed,
propagation is largely influenced or dominated by the process know as diffraction. Diffraction results in an apparent
lossy bending of the wave around an obstruction into a shadowed area.

Again, it should be pointed out that the model being generated is for close range communications where transmitter and
receiver pairs are relatively local to one another (i.e. < 1000 meters). The terrain model we use here is based on the
knife-edge model in which any obstruction is replaced with an absorbing plane normal to the direct path between the
transmitter and receiver. Further, we take the maximum height of the obstacle within the terrain area that blocks the
propagation rays and models them as a single obstruction with a height of (h), and calculate a diffraction parameter
know as the Fresnel-Kirchoff diffraction parameter [2] using the distances of the receiver (d
1
) and transmitter (d
2
) from
the terrain obstruction. The concept is similar to the Bullington model in that the terrain is replaced by a single
equivalent point of intersection from the transmit and receiver terminals. This geometry is depicted in the following
figure:
h
TX RX
K
n
ife
-E
d
g
e
D
iffra
c
tio
n
d1 d2

Figure 9: Diffraction model using knife-edge approach

The Fresnel-Kirchoff diffraction parameter, , is calculated using the following equation

d d
d d
h
2 1
)
2 1
( 2

+
= (10)
where d1 and d2 are the distances from the obstacle to the transmitter and the receiver in meters, and h is the height of
the obstacle in meters.

A plot of the diffraction parameter vs. height of the terrain obstacle is shown in Figure 10. The graph is plotted for
transmitter and receiver located 150 meters away from the obstacle (300 meters total propagation distance). For
example, an obstacle in the propagation path of a 153 MHz ray at a height of 15 meters corresponds to a diffraction
parameter of 1.8.

The Fresnel-Kirchoff Equation is derived in reference 2 (pages 37-39).

0 5 10 15 20 25 30
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
5
Terrain Height (meters)
Diffraction
Parameter 100 MHz
153 MHz
300 MHz

Figure 10. Diffraction Parameter as a Function of Obstacle Height (d
1
= d
2
= 150 meters)

The path loss can now be computed as a function of the Fresnel diffraction parameter. The following equation, derived
from reference 2 (page 42), expresses the path loss L
diff
as a function of the diffraction parameter .
] )) ( j ) ( (
2
1
j
2
1
2
j) 1 (
log
10
20 [ v S v C
Ldiff

+
= (11)

-3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3
-25
-20
-15
-10
-5
0
5
Fresnel-Kirchoff Diffraction Parameter
Excess Path Loss
(dB)

Figure 11. Path Loss vs. Diffraction Parameter
The loss associated with a diffraction parameter of 1.8 (using the result from the previous example (153 MHz, 15 meters,
TX and RX 150 meters)) yields and additional path loss of approximately 18 dB. If the diffraction parameter were 1.0
then the loss would be 13.5 dB.

6. PUTTING THE MODEL TOGETHER

Thus far we have calculated the propagation loss associated with surface earth with reflecting waves (L
p
), foliage loss
(L
f
), terrain using knife edge approach (L
diff
). Summing these losses together then represent the short range path loss with
antenna near ground. Thus,

L
total
= L
p
+ L
f
+ L
diff
(12)

That is for a range greater than 14 meters, range > 14 meters,


))]} ( j ) ( (
2
1
j
2
1
[
2
j) 1 (
{
log
10
20
)}
588 . 0
)(
284 . 0
( 33 . 1 {
} log 40 log 20 log 20 log 10 log 10 {
v S v C
d
f
f
d
h
tx
h
rx
G
rx
G
tx
L
total

+
+
+
+ + + =
(13)

Given the following scenario, we can predict path loss as a function of antenna height for these various parameters:
Frequency of operation = 153 MHz
TX and RX distance = 100 - 700 meters
Foliage and Trees for a depth of 100 meters
Terrain Roughness or obstacle of 10 meters
RX and TX distance is symmetrical to obstacle
RX and TX antenna gain = -0 dBi

The following graph utilizes [13] to plot path loss as a function of antenna height.

10
-1
10
0
-150
-145
-140
-135
-130
-125
-120
-115
-110
-105
-100
Total Path Loss
(dB)
Antenna Height (meters)
RF Propagation Model for Short Range Sensor Comms
300 meters
100 meters of dense foliage
153 MHz, Terrain Height Obstacle 10 meters
Dielectric Constant of Surface 15 (Average Soil)
Conductivity .005 Siemens (Average Soil)
Antenna Gains 0 dBi (TX and RX)

100 meters
200 meters
400 meters
500 meters
600 meters
700 meters

Figure 12. Path Loss Prediction for Composite Model
It is important to understand the limitations of this additive model if one is to apply it successfully. For instance, if an
obstruction large with respect to the distance between transmitter and receiver, propagation may be dominated by
shadowing (diffraction) with free-space propagation to and from the diffraction object propagation. Fortunately, for
many common situations the additive loss model produces reasonable path loss estimates.

7. FIELD TESTING ACTUAL RESULTS

To validate the analytical predictions, we have conducted a series of experiments with representative sensor data radios.
One series of tests is summarized in figure 13. For these series of tests we measured the link margin for a 100 mW,
1200 bits/sec sensor radio link as a function of distance at 150 MHz. The antennas were quarter wave monopoles
(approximately 0.5 meters) placed on the surface. For the purpose of this test we defined link margin as the amount of
power required to close the link in excess of that required to maintain a BER of 10
-4
. This corresponds to a receiver
power level of approximately 110 dBm for the particularly equipment used in this test. We note substantial variability
from location to location, as one might expect, although a general inverse R
4
characteristic is apparent. The model
developed previously predicts a loss of approximately 80 dB for the various configurations at a range of 100 meters.
The data shows an actual path loss equal to +20 dBm (power output) (-110 dBm, receiver sensitivity) 55 dB (margin)
= 75 dB, in close agreement with the prediction.
0.00
10.00
20.00
30.00
40.00
50.00
60.00
70.00
80.00
0 200 400 600 800
range (meters)
m
a
r
g
i
n

(
d
B
)
flat grassy plain
flat plain with dry foliage
low intervening hill without
foliage
inverse R^4

Figure 13: Link Margin for a 100 mW data radio as a function of range

A second test has been conducted with dense semi-tropical foliage between a transmitter and receiver spaced by 300
meters, buried in the ground with quarter wave monopole antennas extended above ground (see Figure 14). This test
was conducted at 9600 bits/sec with a 100 mW transmitter. Test results show that there is essentially no link margin at
300 meters, corresponding to a path loss of approximately 120 dB. This compares favorably to the path loss predicted in
Figure 12.



Figure 14: Foliage Environment for Propagation Test

8. CONCLUSION

This paper has developed a model for RF propagation with link ranges < 500 meters, VHF/UHF, and antenna elements
that are placed near the ground. We have further shown that model predictions are in reasonable agreement with
experimental results, for several scenarios.

More data must be collected to fine tune this model and extend its application to higher frequencies and longer ranges.

9. REFERENCES

[1] Bertoni, Radio Propagation for Modern Wireless Systems, Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle Rive, New Jersey, 2000.
[2] Parsons, The Mobile Radio Propagation Channel, Halted Press Wiley and Sons, New York, 1992
[3] Weissberger, An Initial Critical Summary of Models for Predicting the Attenuation of Radio Waves by Trees,
ESD-TR-81-101, EMC Analysis Center, Annapolis, MD, 1982
[4] Boithias, Radiowave Propagation, McGraw-Hill, 1987
[5] Vizmuller, RF Design Guide Systems, Circuits, and Equations, Artech House, Norwood, MA, 1995








This material is in the public domain and may be reprinted without permission; citation of this source is appreciated. This white paper has been released into the public
domain in accordance with International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR) 22 CFR 120.11(a)(6). Copyright 2007 L-3 Nova Engineering, Inc.

NL-SC028-070427