You are on page 1of 57

# TOPIC 8:

Terrain Models
EE 542
Fall 2008

O. Kilic EE 542

Outline
Terrain as sharp edges
Outdoor propagation models

References:
Simon R. Saunders, Antennas and Propagation for
Wireless Communication Systems, Wiley.

O. Kilic EE 542

## Fixed Terrestrial Links

Involve a pair of stations mounted on
masts and separated by 10-100s of km.
Masts are typically many 10s of meters
high.
Highly directional antennas are used to
allow for a generous fade margin.

O. Kilic EE 542

## Free Space Path Loss Model

From Friis equation:

PR = PT GT GR

R
4

PR

= GT GR

PT
4 R

PT GT GR 4 R
LFS 
=

PR

LFS (dB) = 32.4 + 20log R + 20log f MHz
2

O. Kilic EE 542

O. Kilic EE 542

1
0.225
= 20log
v
v 2

O. Kilic EE 542

## Single Obstruction Example

A microwave link operating at 10GHz with a path
length of 30 km has a maximum acceptable
path loss of 169 dB. The TX antenna is
mounted 20 m above the ground, while the
height of the receiver antenna is TBD. The
ground is level except for a 80 m high hill
located 10 km away from the TX.
a) Calculate the total path loss assuming the RX
is mounted 20m above the ground.
b) Calculate the height of the RX antenna for the
path loss to be just equal to the maximum
acceptable value.
O. Kilic EE 542

Solution
a)

## LF (dB) = 32.4 + 20log R + 20log f MHz

= 32.4 + 20log30 + 20log10000
= 142 dB

O. Kilic EE 542

Solution
a)
h = 60m o = 10 km ro = 20 km

Single KE Loss:

R1 =

o ro
; = 3 102 m
o + ro

vh 2

2 30 103
= 60
=6
R1
3 102 10 103 20 103

= 28.5 dB

ro

O. Kilic EE 542

0.225
v

Solution
a)
Total path Loss:

L = LFS + LKE

(dB )

O. Kilic EE 542

Solution
b)

## We cant do anything about free space loss unless we are allowed to

change the geometry or frequency. Assuming the RX tower height is the
only variable we can change, we need to reduce the obstruction loss.
The acceptable level for the obstruction loss is: 169-142 = 27 dB. Thus, the
RX antenna height can be determined as:

0.225
LKE (dB) = 27 = 20log

0.225
v=
=5
10
o ro
h=v
= v 10 = 50 m
2( o + ro )
27

20

O. Kilic EE 542

O. Kilic EE 542

## Multiple Knife Edge Diffraction

Models

Bullington (1946)
Epstein (1953)
Deygout (1994)
Giovanelli (modification to
Deygout)

O. Kilic EE 542

Bullington Method

Defines a new effective obstacle at the point where the LOS from the two antennas
cross.

Equivalent problem:
hm
RX

TX
O. Kilic EE 542

Bullington Method - 2
Very simple method
Important obstacles can be ignored,
therefore losses can be underestimated
Reasonably accurate when two KEs re
relatively close.
Not an accurate method in general as the
same equivalent KE can be the solution to
multiple scenarios.
O. Kilic EE 542

Bullington Method -3

hm
b

RX

TX
Cases a and b are treated identically.

O. Kilic EE 542

Epstein-Peterson Method
L = L1 + L2
L1: (TX-1-2)
L1 = L(d1,d2,h1)

L2: (2-3-RX)
L2 = L(d3,d4,h3)

h1

h3
2

TX

RX
d1

d2

d3

## Draw lines-of-sight between relevant obstacles and add

the diffraction losses at each obstacle.

O. Kilic EE 542

d4

Epstein-Peterson - 2
Overcomes the primary limitation of
Bullington that important obstacles can
be ignored.
Has large errors for two closely spaced
obstructions. In this case Bullington
method is better.

O. Kilic EE 542

Deygout Method
Search the entire path for a main obstacle,
i.e., the point with the highest value of v
along the path.
Diffraction losses over "secondary"
obstacles may be added to the diffraction
loss over the main obstacle.
Diffraction for secondary obstacles is
calculated wrt the main obstacle and the
visible terminal.
O. Kilic EE 542

Deygout Method - 2
L = Lm + L1 + L2

Secondary term
L1: TX-1-m
L1 = L(d1,d2,h1)

Main term

h1

Secondary term
L2: m-2-RX
L2 = L(d3,d4,h2)
h2

m
1

TX

d1

d2

Main obstacle
vmax

d3

Lm: TX-m-RX
Lm = L(d1+d2,hm,d3+d4)
O. Kilic EE 542

d4

RX

Deygout Method - 3
Typically agrees well with rigorous
techniques
Overestimates loss, especially when there
are multiple obstacles close together
The accuracy is higher when there is one
dominant obstacle
Superior to Bullington and EpsteinPeterson methods for highly obstructed
paths
O. Kilic EE 542

Giovanelli Method
Modification to Deygout Method
Identifies a main obstacle as in Deygout.
Find a reference point for diffraction
calculations

O. Kilic EE 542

Giovanelli Method
L = Lm + L1

## Tangent line to secondary

obstacle

Main term
L1
hm

RX
m
1

TX

d1

d3

d2
L1: m-1-RX
L1 = L(d2,d3,h1)

Lm: TX-1-RX
Lm = L(d1,d2+d3,hm)

O. Kilic EE 542

h1
RX

Other Methods
Many different approaches exist.
Some are modifications to the methods
mentioned.
Examples:
Causebrook
Vogler (analytic approach)

O. Kilic EE 542

O. Kilic EE 542

O. Kilic EE 542

Vogler

grazing
O. Kilic EE 542

O. Kilic EE 542

Vogler

O. Kilic EE 542

O. Kilic EE 542

O. Kilic EE 542

## Other Outdoor Propagation Models

The methods discussed so far all depend on
reducing the terrain to sharp edges.
The terrain profile may vary from a simple
curved earth profile to a highly mountainous
profile with the presence of trees, buildings and
other obstacles.
This results in deterministic + random
components for the path loss.
Numerous propagation models exist based on
measurement data and statistical methods.

O. Kilic EE 542

## Outdoor Propagation Models

Longley-Rice
Durkin
Okumura
Hata
Lee
.. So on

O. Kilic EE 542

Okumura Model
One of the most widely used models for signal
prediction in urban areas.
Fully empirical method, based on extensive
series of measurements made around Tokyo.
There is no attempt to base the prediction to a
physical method.
In general applicable to
f: [150 MHz 1920 MHz]
D: [1km 100 km]
H: [30 m 1000 m]

## Predictions are made via a series of graphs

O. Kilic EE 542

Okumura-Hata Model
Hata approximated Okumuras
measurements in a set of formulae.
The urban values have been standardized
by ITU for international use.
The method involves dividing the area into
a series of categories: open, suburban and
urban.

O. Kilic EE 542

Okumura-Hata Model
The median path loss are calculated using
the following expressions:
URBAN:
L(dB) = A + BlogR E
SUBURBAN L(dB) = A + BlogR C
OPEN
L(dB) = A + BlogR - D

O. Kilic EE 542

Okumura-Hata Model
A = 69.55 + 26.16log f c 13.82log hb
B = 44.9 6.55log hb
2

f
C = 2 log( c ) + 5.4
28

2

2

2

O. Kilic EE 542

O. Kilic EE 542

O. Kilic EE 542

O. Kilic EE 542

O. Kilic EE 542

O. Kilic EE 542

O. Kilic EE 542

O. Kilic EE 542

O. Kilic EE 542

O. Kilic EE 542

O. Kilic EE 542

O. Kilic EE 542

O. Kilic EE 542

O. Kilic EE 542

O. Kilic EE 542

O. Kilic EE 542

O. Kilic EE 542

Only

O. Kilic EE 542

O. Kilic EE 542

O. Kilic EE 542

O. Kilic EE 542