Professional Documents
Culture Documents
I , JANUARY 1994
Abstract- A method to model tropospheric radiowave propa- Recently, a finite-difference radiowave propagation model
gation over land in the presence of range-dependent refractivity for arbitrary terrain paths, called FDPEM (Finite-Difference
is presented. The Terrain Parabolic Equation Model (TPEM), is Parabolic Equation Model), has been developed 161. Another
based on the split-step Fourier algorithm to solve the parabolic
wave equation, which has been shown to be numerically efficient. PE model for propagation over terrain has been developed
Comparisonsbetween TPEM, other terrain models (SEKE, GTD, by Marcus 171, incorporating a hybrid finite-differencehrface
FDPEM), and experimental data show predominantly excellent Green’s function. Two PE terrain models currently exist that
agreement. TPEM is also compared to results from an experi- use the split-step algorithm. One is by McArthur 181, which
ment in the Arizona desert in which range-dependent refractive is based on similar principles of what will be presented in
conditions were measured. Although horizontal polarization is
used in the implementation of the model, vertical polarization is this paper. His approach, however, differs slightly-more will
also discussed. be said about this in Section 111. The other PE terrain model
was developed by Ryan 191. Though the model presented here
I. INTRODUCTION was developed independently, it is theoretically equivalent
to Ryan’s model. However, there are differences in imple-
0 SUCCESSFULLY model tropospheric radiowave prop- mentation which, it is assumed, will give somewhat different
agation over terrain, it is necessary to properly estimate results. These differences will be touched upon in Section 111.
the effects of reflection, refraction, and diffraction. Many Comparisons with the above two models will not be given
models currently exist that use a combination of spherical earth since results were not available.
diffraction, multiple knife-edge diffraction, wedge diffraction, The model presented here, called TPEM (Terrain Parabolic
and geometrical optics to arrive at a solution for the field for Equation Model), is based on a modification to the smooth
ii given transmitterlreceiver geometry and a specified terrain
earth PE and uses the split-step Fourier algorithm [lo], [ 111.
path. One model, called SEKE (Spherical Earth Knife Edge), This is a numerically efficient model because of the use of
was developed at Lincoln Laboratory [l]. This model is fast Fourier transforms (FITS) in its implementation. Since
based on the assumption that the propagation loss over any only a minor modification to the smooth earth PE is required
path (in the frequency range from VHF to X-band) can be to include terrain effects, a brief description of the derivation
approximated by one of the multipath, multiple knife-edge and implementation will be given in Sections I1 and 111,
diffraction, or spherical earth diffraction losses alone, or a respectively. Validation of TPEM will be given in Section IV
weighted average of these three basic losses. Another model using comparisons with some of the aforementioned models
is, based on the geometrical theory of diffraction (GTD) 121 and measured data.
and works by determining what ray paths exist, for a given
heightheceiver geometry and terrain profile, from a family of
16 ray types. The total field at the target is then found by 11. TERRAIN MODEL
adding the ray amplitudes from each possible ray. While these In the following formulation, the atmosphere is assumed
models may adequately account for reflection and diffraction, to vary in range and height only, making the field equations
they lack a proper accounting for range-dependent atmospheric independent of azimuth. Also, there is an assumed time
environments. SEKE allows for a variable earth radius factor, dependence of e-iwt in the field components. We begin with
but this assumes a constant gradient and horizontal homogene- the parabolic wave equation for a flat earth [ 5 ] , [12]:
ity. The GTD model will allow inhomogeneous environments
but problems still arise in regions of caustics.
For many years now the parabolic equation (PE) method has
d2?b(X,
dz2 + d?b(Xc, 2 )
2ik,----
dX
boundary condition that is applied at the earth's surface. For terms in the bracketed quantity. We end up with the modified
the present, only horizontal polarization will be addressed. PE
More will be said about the vertical polarization case in
Section V. For a perfectly reflecting surface, the horizontal
polarization boundary condition is $ ( x , z ~ ( z )=) 0, where
z ~ ( x represents
) z = T ( x ) and T ( x ) is a general height
function describing the terrain. The application of the above
boundary condition to an arbitrary terrain height function
where
adds to the complexity, or difficulty, of the problem when
propagating over terrain. The fact that the boundary condition
is range-dependent makes a straight-forward solution very
difficult. from (3), with the term in brackets representing the final form
A transformation is made according to the method first for 6. The refractive index n in (5) is written as a function
presented by Beilis and Tappert [13], in which they used this of the new height and range variables. T " ( x ) represents the
technique to model rough surface scattering for underwater second derivative with respect to 2:. Using (2), (5) can be
acoustic fields. The original coordinate system is transformed written as
such that a simpler boundary condition is obtained in the
@ W x , 5)
new coordinate system and a new PE is derived. This same as2 + 22k0-d QdX( x , i)
method was arrived at independently by Abarbanel [ 11 and the
concept of transforming the coordinate system was introduced + k , 2 [ 4 C+ T ( X ) )- 1
years earlier by Neviere, et al. [15]. The method by Beilis
and Tappert will be briefly described here, but the reader is
referred to [13] for a more detailed derivation.
{
- 25 t"(X) - -
31 9 ( x , C) = 0.
Comparing (7) above with [lo, eq. (27)], one can see that the
(7)
x 106.
iiccount the radius of curvature of each segment ( A x ) of the the equation can no longer be simplified such that a new
lerrain. The second derivative, t ” ( x ) ,is determined using the Helmholtz equation results [13]. The fact that this model
second-order central difference formula with the range interval works extremely well using the wide-angle propagator, when
corresponding to the PE range step. compared to other models and measured data (as will be
Referring back to the approach by McArthur, his method shown shortly), may lead one to assume that this term can
consists of adjusting the field in transform, or angle ( p ) , space be considered very small so as to be ignored. No detailed
while the method presented here adjusts the field in height (C) analysis has been done here to see if this is the case.
space. That is, in McArthur’s method, slopes are modeled by The numerical implementation of (8) is fairly straightfor-
“tilting” the field via the Fourier shift theorem, so the wave ward. The Fourier transform is implemented using a mixed
front remains perpendicular to the boundary, which has the radix FFT algorithm developed by Bergland [ 171, combined
effect of flattening the surface and skewing the beam direction with algorithms for sine and cosine transforms by Cooley,
[ 81. Whereas here, flattening of the boundary is done explicitly Lewis, and Welsh [18]. A cosine-taper (Tukey) window [19]
be the change of variables described in Section 11, and in is used to attenuate the field smoothly at large heights and
which beam direction is now affected by t { ‘ ( x )in the resulting large propagation angles that are near the maximum set by
modified refractive index. , , ,C and p,,. In the implementation by Ryan, no filtering
The forward and inverse Fourier transforms are defined by is done in this “buffer” region, but a complex absorber, or
“sponge,” is included in the split-step algorithm [9] to satisfy
-
the radiation condition.
-5max
B. Initial Field
+
As (8) shows, the field at range x A x is dependent on the
field at the previous range step. Therefore, one must begin with
a source field at range 0 in order to propagate the field forward.
where here, the transforms are written in continuous form, but
From (6), the source field in the new coordinate system is
with limits of integration corresponding to the “bandlimits”
written in terms of the source field for propagation over a flat
placed upon C and p (since the discrete Fourier transform,
by way of the FFT, is actually used). , , ,<and p,, are
earth
determined by Nyquist’s criteria: Cmaxpma,=7rN, N being the
transform size.
The free-space propagator, which is the exponential term The source field is easily determined using image theory and
Fourier transform properties. One first begins with noting
in the bracketed quantity ({ }) in (S), is the wide-angle
propagator originally developed by Feit and Fleck [16]. The that the field at range 0 is essentially the antenna aperture
distribution, and that the far-field antenna pattem and its
wide-angle propagator is used here because of the necessity
aperture distribution are a Fourier transform pair
of including large angles when propagating over terrain. The
propagation angle 0 becomes large for the terrain case because
the slope of the terrain needs to be accounted for. The steeper
tlhe terrain, the larger the propagation angle upon reflection. Applying the boundary condition that the field vanish at the
A special note should be made here on the use of the surface, we use image theory to obtain
wide-angle propagator. As described in [lo], the derivation
of the split-step algorithm from the PE of the form of (7),
$(O, Z) = A(. - 20) - A*(z + ZO)
leads to the standard propagator. Computationally, the wide- where 11, is written as the sum of the source and image fields,
angle propagator is no more time-consuming than the standard and zo represents the antenna height. Since the antenna pattern
propagator, and it has the advantage that it is more accurate at is what is normally dealt with, one can simply transform (9)
higher angles. However, there is no derivation known to this to obtain
author to obtain the wide-angle propagator from the PE of
the form of (7). The wide-angle propagator is derived from
an approximation of the “pseudo” operator resulting from Two antenna patterns are currently used in TPEM. One is
factoring out the elliptical wave equation. In order to derive a truncated omnidirectional pattern [ f ( p )= 11-truncated since
diis propagator one must begin with the elliptical Helmholtz 0 only extends to the propagation angle specified by the user
equation [5], [16] and the maximum angle corresponding to the largest slope of
the terrain profile. The other is a normalized Gaussian antenna
pattern:
-Ipm
328 xxxxxxx SENE
16-38
7
-28 -18 E 18 28 n 28
P R O ~ T I O NFACTOR dB FREE SPACE - - -- PROPRGAIIWI FETOR dB FREE SFME -
8
I 000
11 22 33 11 55 8
Ranma km 36
R a w - km
Fig. 1. Terrain profile for north (55 h)Beiseker Pa* With height-gain Plot Fig. 2. Terrain profile for west (35 h)Beiseker path with height-gain plot
showing TPEM, SEKE, and measured signal. showing TPEM, SEKE,and measured signal.
and Obw is the 3 dB beamwidth. To include elevation angles plots refers to height above the ground at the particular receiver
one can simply replace f(p) with f(p - p , ) , where p , = range shown.
IC, sin O e l e v . Propagation measurements were made over several sites in
Canada by Lincoln Laboratory [l]. Comparisons will be pre-
C. Environment sented for one site in particular, the Beiseker area in Alberta,
The program accepts height versus refractivity profiles Canada. The terrain is considered to be intermediate rolling
at specified ranges. At every range step Ax the split-step farmland with negligible vegetation. A standard atmosphere
algorithm requires a refractivity profile as a function of height. of 118 M - u n i t s h for TPEM was used and a 4/3 earth radius
For a range-independent case only one profile is required. If factor was used for SEKE. Fig. 1 shows the 55 km north
several profiles are entered to simulate a range-dependent en- terrain profile (Beiseker N55) along with the height-gain plot
vironment, then interpolation among the profiles is performed comparing SEKE, TPEM, and the propagation measurements.
according to the method described by Barrios [ l I]. In Ryan’s The frequency is 435 MHz, the transmitter height is 18.3 m
model the interpolation is done using a bivariate surface fitting above the ground, and the receiver range is 54.5 km. For this
algorithm [20]. case TPEM and SEKE agree fairly well with the measured
The terrain profile is entered in much the same way as the data. Fig. 2 shows the same comparison for a frequency of 167
refractivity profiles. All that is required is a series of data MHz along the 35 km west path (Beiseker W35). Here, both
points corresponding to height versus range to describe the TPEM and SEKE agree well with the data, however, TPEM i s
terrain. As mentioned in Section 11, the ground is considered also able to capture the multipath pattern at the higher altitudes.
to be smooth and perfectly conducting. Therefore, no finite Validation of the GTD model was made using the VHF
conductivity results will be presented, in which varying per- propagation measurements taken at Gardner, MA [21]. Mea-
mittivity and conductivity values are used. Also, no effects surements were made at low altitude over hilly, forested
due to vegetation or forested areas will be considered. For the terrain. The frequency used was 110.6 MHz with the antenna
results presented in Section IV, only horizontal polarization located at one half-wavelength (approx. 1.4 m) above a ground
will be addressed. plane located 4.6 m above the ground. Fig. 3 shows the Natty
Pond terrain profile, along with the height-gain plot displaying
the measured data with predictions by TPEM and the GTD
IV. VALIDATION model. The receiver range for this case is at 6.6 km with the
In this section all measurement and prediction results will environment being standard atmosphere for TPEM, and 4/3
be displayed as height vs. one-way propagation factor (field earth radius for the GTD model. Both models agree very well
strength relative to free space) in dB. “Height” within these with the measured data.
94 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON ANTENNAS AND PROPAGATION, VOL. 42, NO. 1, JANUARY 1994
WUIRIZMION HOR
M T HT ta 45.8
3a M T TYP @WS
H UER BU des 3.8
e ELU &NG dag 8.8
I 40 I
g 248
h
t
e 168
-,
-38 -28 -ie 0
PROPAGATION FACTOR dB FREE SPACE - --- e-
# 10
-- U”
36 54 72 98
Fig. 4. Coverage diagram showing propagation loss contours for East Anglia
i “1
588
terrain path, standard atmosphere.
I
I
I
E I
-BE -68 -4E -28 8 2 8
PROPMGRIION FACTOR dB FREE SPACE ----
!
I
FRgp HHz 178
Fig. 6. Terrain profile from Gila Bend to Datelan showing meteorologi- l I
I
POLARIZATION HOR
cal and receiver stations with heighdrefractivity profiles measured at 0300 it" HI rt SE
I RllNGE U 46.3
February 1946. I MT TYPE olpll
I UEA BY deg wn
I ElEu AWG deg WII
I 1ZE I
based duct. Since the ducts were created by the dissipation of I
heat from the ground, interpolation between the profiles was I
I
performed such that the trapping layers followed the contour I
1
of the terrain. - TPEH 1
OmDDD dserued I
Figs. 7(a) and 7(b) compare TPEM with measured data at I
E
a "1
1 CiIa Bond to Scntinsl
I:
WWGE
MI TYPE
UERW
ELEU
HT ft
gm
deg
Iv(6 deg
198
26.7
OnNI
WA
Wh
H
6
I
1
i
PREP
RIv(6E
I1 TYPE
UER W
MI 1000
POlARIzAIlON HOR
TAIW HI em
des
iBB
ft 26.7
WNI
WR
H
T
88-
f
t
I
40-
-m E 28
FREE SPWE
:j
6i1a Bend to Datslan
288 I
i
I
I FREP f k 528 I FREP IYlr 1000
POUIRlZATIMI WR POlARIZIITIR HOR
I I
IRM HT f t 1% I TWVl HT ft 108
wmoo obssrusd I RIIWGE sm 46.3 RMGE em 46.3
I MI IYPE OM1 I PWT TYPE oIp(I
I UER W deg Wh I WBY deg WR
I KLEV ffl6 deg WII I BLEU IG deg N/R
I I
I
ft I
I I
I I
I % I I
-Ipm
I
I
I
I
} I
I
I
I
E! I 1
-BE -68 -40 -28 0 2 8
PROPAGAIION FACTOR dB FREE SMCE --- -
(b)
Fig. 8. Height-gain plot showing TPEM and measured signal for frequency
of 520 MHz, at receiver ranges (a) 26.7 mi and (b) 46.3 mi.
4
P WuullZllTIoW 188
UER
I
lwyl Hl m 45
!
0
1 m o ~ o ohrued P RE HI I 288
- m n MT TYPE WSS
6 UKR W dog 4
n KLEUVNC deg 98
1
I
0
n
L
0
S
40 S
d
B
1 I I I I
-€a -68 -498 -28 B 28 f i 1 8 3 6 5 1 n s a
PROPIIGMIWI FWIOR dB FREE SPllCK - - - - Rnw kn IRE SPKE - - - -
Fig. 11. Propagation loss vs. range plot showing TPEM-horizontal polariza-
tion and FDPEM-vertical polarization for East Anglia terrain. TF’EM is offset
by 5 dB to distinguish between the two curves.
6111 Bond to Datelan
IRE9 M BEE
POLIIRIZATIffl HOR
IPW TMtI HT ft 1998 A major concern with propagation over terrain is the de-
m” obrarwd WYIGE sm 46.3 tectability of targets in the shadow zone, where targets lie
MI IYPK CM1
U E R I deg WA
ELKU M6 deg W11
beyond an obstacle such as a hill or building. The dominant
mechanism in this case is diffraction. Meeks [24] states
that in the theoretical analysis of diffraction, “for knife-
edge diffraction the results are rigorously independent of
I
I
polarization for small diffraction angles,” and for cylinder
I diffraction the dependence on polarization is very weak for
I
permittivity and conductivity values at radar frequencies.
This independence of polarization on signals measured over
land has been reported (many times) experimentally. In a
study of nine over-land experiments ranging in frequency from
43 MHz to 10 GHz, and ranging from flat desert to moun-
tainous terrain, Kerr [25] reports several common features
resulting from the experiments, one being that vertically and
horizontally polarized fields showed similar behavior. Other
experiments leading to the same
is 3.0, and for the conductivity, 1x S/m. A homogeneous, result have been reported by Carlson and Waterman [26],
low elevated duct was used for the refractivity and the terrain and Englund, et al. [27]. Even for small surface roughness,
where ground perturbations are electrically small, polarization
path is the East Anglia profile shown in Fig. 4. The antenna
dependence will be weak [28]. However, polarization may
height is located within the duct. Fig. 11 shows a propagation
be a factor when surface perturbations are on the order of
loss vs range plot for a receiver height of 200 m. As was
a wavelength.
done with Fig. 5 , the curve for TPEM has been offset by
One last point to be addressed are the limitations within
5 dB in order to distinguish between it and the result from
TPEM. As already mentioned in many of the references
FDPEM, since they appear as one curve when overlayed on regarding the split-step PE algorithm, transform size is directly
top of each other. One can see that for all ranges, there is very proportional to frequency and propagation angle. When deal-
little difference between the two curves. ing with terrain profiles that consist of relatively steep slopes,
There is a second possible explanation for the favorable transform sizes (and mn times) become so large that it makes
comparisons between predicted fields using the perfect con- it quite impractical for an operational model. However, if one
ductor assumption, and measurements. Most rays that strike does not need to be concerned with high-angle reflections, the
the ground reflect at very sharp angles. These rays will undergo field can be handled as in the flat-topped block case, wherein
very little refraction because of the very large propagation high-angle reflections will be ignored, and propagation angles
angles associated with them. Rays may become reflected twice can be kept fairly low.
or even three times. However, even within a surface based
duct, rays will not continually be reflected as in over-ocean
propagation, but will bounce off the ground and into space. VI. CONCLUSION
Therefore, when looking at long-range signals, cumulative ef- A numerically efficient method has been presented to model
fects from continual reflection (with less-than-unity reflection tropospheric radiowave propagation over irregular terrain in
coefficient magnitudes) will not be a factor. the presence of range-dependent nonstandard environmental
98 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON ANTENNAS AND PROPAGATION, VOL. 42. NO. 1, JANUARY 1994
conditions. While perfect conductivity and smooth surface [l 11 A. E. Barrios, “Parablic equation modelling in horizontally inhomoge-
were assumed, results from this model were compared against neous environments,” IEEE Trans. Antennas Propagat., vol. 40, no. 7,
pp. 791-797, July 1992.
measured data and other existing models and were shown to [12] V. A. Fnck, Electromagnetic and Propagation Problems. New York:
give predominantly excellent agreement. Pergamon, 1965, ch. 11-14.
[13] A. Beilis and F. D. Tappert, “Coupled mode analysis of multiple rough
Although a method was outlined to model vertical polariza- surface scattering,” J. Acout. Soc. Am., vol. 66, no. 3, pp. 811-826,
tion and finite conductivity with the split-step PE algorithm, Sept. 1979.
doing so will needlessly create a larger and slower model. [14] H. D. I. Abarbanel, “Scattering from a random surface,” J. Acoust. Soc.
Am., vol. 68, no. 5, pp. 1459-1466, Nov. 1980.
It: has been shown that there is very little difference in [15] M. Neivere, M. Cadilhac, and R. Petit, “Applications of conformal
polarizations for transmittedreceiver geometries on land and mappings to the diffraction of electromagnetic waves by a grating,”
separated by relatively large distances. Since the final objective IEEE Trans. Antennas Propagat., vol. AP-21, no. 1, pp. 37-46, Jan.
1973.
in model development is to produce a real-time capability for [16] M. D. Feit and J. A. Fleck, Jr., “Light propagation in graded-index
predicting signal levels for operational assessment, whether fibers,” Appl. Opt., vol. 17, pp. 399G3998, 1978.
it be for military or civilian requirements, the assumption 1171 G. D. Bergland, “A radix-eight fast Fourier transform subroutine for
real-valued series,” IEEE Trans. Audio Electro-Acoust., vol. AU-17, pp.
of horizontal polarization, perfect conductor, for land-based 138-144, 1969.
transmitters and receivers should be adequate. [18] J. W. Cooley, P. A. W. Lewis, and P. D. Welsh, “The fast Fourier
transform algorithm: Programming considerations in the calculations
of sine, cosine, and Laplace transforms,” J. Sound Kb., vol. 12, pp.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT 315-337, 1970.
[I91 F. J. Harris, “On the use of windows for harmonic analysis with the
The author wishes to thank Dr. Kenneth Craig from Ruther- discrete fourier transform,” Proc. IEEE, vol. 66, pp. 51-83, Jan. 1978.
[20] F. J. Ryan, “User’s guide for the VTRPE (variable terrain radio parabolic
ford Appleton Laboratory for supplying the East Anglia terrain equation) computer model,” Rep. NOSC TR 1456, Oct. 1991.
and environmental data. [21] M. L. Meeks, “VHF propagation over hilly, forested terrain,” IEEE
Trans. Antennas Propagat., vol. AP-31, no. 3, pp. 483489, May 1983.
[22] J. P. Day and L. G. Trolese, “Propagation of short radio waves over
REFERENCES desert terrain,” NEL Rep. 149, Nov. 3, 1949.
[23] H. R. Reed and C. M. Russell, Ultra High Frequency Propagation.
[ I ] S. Ayasli, “SEKE: A computer model for low altitude radar propagation New York Science P, 1964, ch. 4.
over irregular terrain,” IEEE Trans. on Antenna Propagat., vol. AP-34, [24] M. L. Meeks, Radar Propagation at Law Altitudes. New York: Artech,
no. 8, pp. 1013-1023. 1982.
[2] R. J. Luebbers, “Propagation prediction for hilly terrain using GTD [25] D. E. Kerr, Propagation of Short Radio Waves. MlT Radiation Labo-
wedge diffraction,” IEEE Trans. Antennas Propagat., vol. AP-32, no. 9, ratory Series. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1951, ch. 4.
pp. 951-955, Sept. 1984. [26] A. B. Carlson and A. T. Waterman, Jr., “Microwave propagation over
[3] H. W. KO, J. W. Sari, and J. P. Skura, “Anamolous microwave mountain-diffraction paths,” IEEE Trans. Antennas Propagat., vol. AP-
propagation through atmospheric ducts,” Johns Hopkins APL Tech. Dig., 14, no. 4, pp. 489-496, July 1966.
vol. 4, no. 2, pp. 12-26, 1983. [27] C. R. Englund, A. B. Crawford, and W. W. Mumford, “Ultra-short-wave
[4] S. T. McDaniel, “Propagation of a normal mode in the parabolic transformation over a 39-mile optical path,” in Proc. I.R.E., Aug. 1940.
approximation,” J. Acoust. Soc. Am., vol. 57, no. 2, pp. 307-31 1, 1975. pp. 36G369.
[ 5 ] F. D. Tappert, “The parabolic approximation method,” in Wave Propa- [28] J. R. Wait, “Comment on ‘Microwave propagation over mountain-
gation and Underwater Acoustics Vol 70 (Lectures Notes in Physics), J. diffraction paths’,’’ IEEE Trans. Antennas Propagat. Comm., p. 321,
B. Keller and J. S. Papadakis, eds. New York: Springer-Verlag, 1977, 1967.
pp. 224-287.
[6] M. F. Levy, “Parabolic equation modelling of propagation over irregular
terrain,” presented at the Seventh Intemat. Con5 Antennas Propagat.,
(ICAP Si), U.K., April 15-18, 1991.
171 S. W. Marcus, “A hybrid (finite difference-surface Green’s function) Amalia E. Barrios was born in Mendota, Califor-
method for computing transmission losses in an inhomogeneous atmos- nia, in 1962. She received the B.S. degree in physics
phere over irregular terrain,” IEEE Trans. Antennas Propagat., vol. 40, from California State University, Fresno, CA, in
no. 12, pp. 1451-1458, Dec. 1992. 1983 and the M.S. degree in electrical engineering
R. J. McArthur, “Propagation modelling over irregular terrain using the from the University of California, San Diego, CA,
split-step parabolic equation method,” IEEE Int’l Conf: Radar ’92, no. in 1989.
365, pp. 54-57, Oct. 12-13, 1992. In 1983 she joined the Research and Develop-
F. J. Ryan, “Analysis of electromagnetic propagation over variable ment, Test and Evaluation Division of the Naval
terrain using the parabolic wave equation,” Rep. NOSC Tr 1453, Oct. Command, Control and Ocean Surveillance Center
1991. (formerly, Naval Ocean Systems Center) in San
J. R. Kuttler and G. D. Dockery, “Theoretical description of the Diego, Ca. She has been developing parabolic equa-
parabolic approximatiodFourier split-step method of representing elec- tion techniques to improve current modeling of tropospheric radiowave
tromagnetic propagation in the troposphere,” Radio Sci., pp. 38 1-393, propagation over variable terrain and is currently looking at methods to
Mar-Apr. 1991. account for rough surface effects.