A Thesis

Entitled

Range Estimation for Tactical Radio Waveforms using

Link Budget Analysis

by

Ayoade Oguntade

Submitted as partial fulfillment of the requirements for

the Master of Science in Electrical Engineering

___________________________________
Dr. Junghwan Kim, Committee Chair

___________________________________
Dr. Lawrence Miller, Committee Member

___________________________________
Dr. Ezzatollah Salari, Committee Member

___________________________________
Dr. Patricia R. Komuniecki, Dean
College of Graduate Studies

The University of Toledo

May 2010
 An Abstract of

Range Estimation for Tactical Radio Waveforms using Link Budget Analysis

by

Ayoade Oguntade

Submitted as partial fulfillment of the requirements for

the Master of Science in Electrical Engineering

The University of Toledo

May 2010

The increasing need to design multiband tactical radio communication modems

that will incorporate several waveforms has made the investigation of the performance of

different tactical waveforms absolutely necessary. These different waveforms must also

meet various demands in quality and nature of data. Range maximization, high data

throughput, and power conservation requirements are usually not fulfilled by a single

waveform. To effectively deliver tactical multimedia data including coded audio, text,

video, map, and navigation information using radio, multiple choice of frequency bands

exist. These include: HF, VHF and UHF. However, along with the effective delivery of

quality data, the maximization of transmission range under hostile propagation

environments – especially under terrain blockage in ground-to-ground (GTG)

iii
communication scenario - is of utmost importance. This thesis discusses the results of

Link Budget Analysis (LBA) performed for the estimation of maximum delivery range of

tactical radio waveforms using variety of data rates for three typically different

waveforms – High Frequency Waveform (HFW), Very High Frequency Waveform

(VHFW) and OFDM based Wideband Network Waveform (WNW). Center frequencies

of 27 MHz, 60 MHz, and 500 MHz respectively were used for the simulations.

Results show that HFW produces the longest range, followed by VHFW and the

WNW – which delivered the highest data rate. Also, the amount of variation in

propagation range that was noticed while parameters like center frequency, antenna

height, antenna gain, transmitter power were varied were also computed.

iv
To my Parents: Emmanuel and Rachel

v
 Acknowledgements

I would like to express profound gratitude to my advisor, Dr. Junghwan Kim, for

his unstinting support, encouragement, supervision and valuable suggestions throughout

this research work. I would also like to thank the entire members of the Communications

Lab for their advice.

Special thanks also go to the local chapter of the National Society of Black

Engineers (NSBE UT) for their support and friendship throughout my stay at UT. I am

also grateful for the opportunity to serve as an executive of this academically-enriching

organization.

I sincerely appreciate Professor Salari and Professor Miller for serving as

members of my thesis defense committee.

Finally, I would also like to deeply appreciate Professor Samuel Kassegne of San

Diego State University (SDSU) for his advice and Mentorship. I also appreciate Damilola

Olushola and Damilola Adewoye of the University of Cincinnati for their support in the

course of my program.

vi
Contents
Abstract ......................................................................................................................................... iii
Acknowledgements ...................................................................................................................... vi
Table of Contents ......................................................................................................................... vi
List of Figures ............................................................................................................................. viii
List of Tables................................................................................................................................. ix
1 Background - Wireless Radio .................................................................................................. 1
1.1 Motivation ............................................................................................................................. 3
1.2 Radio Channel....................................................................................................................... 3
1.3 Thesis Contribution............................................................................................................... 4
1.4 Thesis Outline ....................................................................................................................... 5

2 Waveform Design ....................................................................................................................... 6

2.1 High FrequencyWaveform .................................................................................................... 6
2.1.1 HFW Waveform Parameters .......................................................................................... 7
2.1.2 HFW FEC Coding .......................................................................................................... 8
2.2 Very High FrequencyWaveform ..........................................................................................11
2.2.1 VHFW Waveform Parameters ..................................................................................... 12
2.2.2 VHFW FEC Coding ..................................................................................................... 15
2.3 Introduction to Windband Network Waveform (WNW) .................................................... 15

3 OFDM Basics and WNW ........................................................................................................ 16

3.1 Analogy of OFDM in real life............................................................................................. 16
3.1.1 OFDM Principle........................................................................................................... 17
3.2 Orthogonality of Subcarriers .............................................................................................. 17
3.2.1 Time Domain Explaination .......................................................................................... 18
3.2.2 Frequency Domain Expalination ................................................................................. 19
3.3 Generation of OFDM Subcarriers using IFFT .................................................................... 20
3.3.1 IFFT vs IDFT – Time Complexity ............................................................................... 21
3.4 ICI and ISI .......................................................................................................................... 21
3.5 Guard Time and Cyclic Prefix ............................................................................................ 22
3.6 Windowing .......................................................................................................................... 23
3.7 Wideband Network Waveform Parameters ......................................................................... 24
3.7.1 Forward Error Correction............................................................................................. 25
3.7.2 Interleaver .................................................................................................................... 26
3.7.3 Modulator ..................................................................................................................... 26

vii
 3.7.4 Data Rate calculation ................................................................................................... 28
4 Channel Impairment Factors.................................................................................................. 30
4.1 Propagation Environment ................................................................................................... 30
4.1.1 Ground to Ground Open Terrain .................................................................................. 30
4.1.2 Ground to Ground Mountain Blockage ....................................................................... 31
4.1.3 Ground to Ground Urban Area .................................................................................... 32
4.1.4 Ship to Ground ............................................................................................................. 32
4.1.5 Ground to Ship ............................................................................................................. 33
4.1.6 Ship to Ship .................................................................................................................. 33
4.2 Path Loss Models ................................................................................................................ 34
4.2.1 Hata-Okomora Model .................................................................................................. 34
4.2.2 Egli Model ................................................................................................................... 36
4.2.3 GRWAVE Model .......................................................................................................... 37
4.2.4 Millington’s Model ...................................................................................................... 39
4.2.5 Lichun Model ............................................................................................................... 40
4.2.6 ITU-R Model ............................................................................................................... 42
4.2.7 Plane Earth Model ........................................................................................................ 44
4.3 Shadowing - Long Term Fading ......................................................................................... 45
4.4 Multipath – Short Term Fading........................................................................................... 46
4.4.1 Rayleigh Fading Channel ............................................................................................. 46
4.4.2 Rician Fading Channel ................................................................................................. 47
4.4.3 Nakagami-m Channel .................................................................................................. 48
4.5 Other Fading Issues ............................................................................................................ 49
4.5.1 Frequency Flat and Frequency Selective Channels ..................................................... 49
4.5.2 Doppler Shift ................................................................................................................ 49
4.5.3 Coherence Time and Doppler Spread .......................................................................... 50

5 Link Budget Analysis ............................................................................................................... 51

5.1 Link Budget ........................................................................................................................ 51
5.2 Equipment Types ................................................................................................................ 51
5.2.1 Manpack Equipment .................................................................................................... 52
5.2.2 Vehicle Equipment ....................................................................................................... 52
5.3 Link Budget Parameters...................................................................................................... 53
5.3.1 Transmitter Power ........................................................................................................ 53
5.3.2 Power Back off............................................................................................................. 54
5.3.3 Center Frequency ......................................................................................................... 54
5.3.4 Antenna Height ............................................................................................................ 54
5.3.5 Antenna Gain ............................................................................................................... 55
5.3.6 Thermal Noise Power................................................................................................... 55
5.3.7 Noise Figure ................................................................................................................. 55
5.3.8 Link Margin ................................................................................................................. 56
5.4 Sample Link Budget Analysis............................................................................................. 57
5.4.1 Sample LBA calculation for GTG-O ........................................................................... 58

viii
6 Discussion of Results ................................................................................................................ 61
6.1HFW Propagation Range ..................................................................................................... 62
6.1.1 HFW GTG-O ............................................................................................................... 62
6.1.2 HFW GTG-M ............................................................................................................... 63
6.1.3 HFW GTG-U ............................................................................................................... 64
6.1.4 HFW GTS/STG............................................................................................................ 65
6.1.5 HFW STS ..................................................................................................................... 66
6.2 VHFW Propagation Range ................................................................................................ 67
6.2.1 VHFW GTG-O............................................................................................................. 67
6.2.2 VHFW GTG-M ............................................................................................................ 68
6.2.3 VHFW GTG-U............................................................................................................. 69
6.2.4 VHFW GTS/STG ......................................................................................................... 70
6.2.5 VHFW STS .................................................................................................................. 71
6.3WNW Propagation Range.................................................................................................... 72
6.3.1 WNW GTG-O .............................................................................................................. 73
6.3.2 WNW GTG-M ............................................................................................................. 74
6.3.3 WNW GTG-U .............................................................................................................. 75
6.3.4 WNW GTS/STG/STS .................................................................................................. 76
6.4 Propagation Range with design parameter variation .......................................................... 77
6.4.1 Range based on Environment and Data rate ................................................................ 77
6.4.2 Range based on Center Frequency ............................................................................... 79
6.4.3 Range based on Transmitter Power.............................................................................. 80
6.4.4 Range based on Antenna Height .................................................................................. 81

7 Conclusion and Future Work.................................................................................................. 83

7.1 Conclusion .......................................................................................................................... 84
7.2 Future Work ........................................................................................................................ 84
References .................................................................................................................................... 86

ix
List of Figures

Figure 1.1 WNW in use in JTRS .................................................................................................... 2

Figure 2.1 BPSK Signal Constellation............................................................................................ 7
Figure 2.2 ½ Rate Convolution Encoder with memory order m = 2 for HFW ............................... 9
Figure 2.3 QPSK Signal Constellation ......................................................................................... 13
Figure 2.4 16-QAM Signal Constellation ..................................................................................... 14
Figure 2.5 32-QAM Signal Constellation ..................................................................................... 14
Figure 3.1 Parallel OFDM Subcarriers ......................................................................................... 17
Figure 3.2 Integer number of cycles over symbol peroid ............................................................. 18
Figure 3.3 Subcarriers in frequency domain ................................................................................. 19
Figure 3.4 Bandwidth savings by using overlapping orthogonal subcarriers ............................... 20
Figure 3.5 Time dispersion on OFDM system without Guard band. ............................................ 22
Figure 3.6 Time dispersion on OFDM system with Guard band and Cyclic Prefix ..................... 23
Figure 3.7 OFDM Symbol ............................................................................................................ 24
Figure 3.8 WNW Transmitter ....................................................................................................... 25
Figure 3.9 WNW Receiver ........................................................................................................... 25
Figure 3.10 BPSK Constellation ................................................................................................... 27
Figure 3.11 QPSK Constellation .................................................................................................. 27
Figure 3.12 16-QAM Constellation ............................................................................................. 28
Figure 4.1 Ground to Ground Open Terrain (GTG-O) ................................................................. 31
Figure 4.2 Ground to Ground Mountain Blockage (GTG-M) ...................................................... 32
Figure 4.3 Ground to Ground Urban Area (GTG-U) .................................................................... 32
Figure 4.4 WNW Ship to Ground (STG)/Ground to Ship (GTS) ................................................. 33
Figure 4.5 Screenshot of the GRWAVE model as used for HFW ................................................. 39
Figure 4.6 Eckersley and Millington’s Prediction methods .......................................................... 40

x
Figure 4.7 Shadowing variation over different paths.................................................................... 45
Figure 5.1 Sample Link Budget Analysis ..................................................................................... 58
Figure 6.1 Range vs Data rate for HFW cases .............................................................................. 78
Figure 6.2 Range vs Data rate for VHFW Cases .......................................................................... 78
Figure 6.3 Range vs Data rate for WNW Cases ........................................................................... 79
Figure 6.4 Range vs Data rate for WNW GTG-U at different frequencies .................................. 80
Figure 6.5 Range vs Data rate for WNW GTG-U at different transmitter powers ....................... 81
Figure 6.6 Range vs Data rate for WNW GTG-U at different antenna heights ............................ 82

xi
List of Tables

Table 2.1 Mapping of Bits to BPSK Symbols ............................................................................... 7

Table 2.2 HFW Configuration ..................................................................................................... 10
Table 2.3 HFW Configuration and its Interleaver sizes ................................................................11
Table 2.4 VHFW Configuration and its Interleaver size.............................................................. 12
Table 2.5 Mapping of Bits to QPSK Symbols ............................................................................. 13
Table 3.1 OFDM Symbol Parameters .......................................................................................... 24
Table 4.1 Propagation model Table.............................................................................................. 34
Table 4.2 Conductivity and Permitivity values for land and sea ................................................. 38
Table 4.3 Lichun Model parameters ............................................................................................ 41
Table 5.1 Parameters for Manpack and Vehicle Equipment ........................................................ 53
Table 6.1 Estimated range for all the HFW cases ........................................................................ 61
Table 6.2 Estimated range for all the VHFW cases ..................................................................... 62
Table 6.3 Estimated range for all the WNW Cases ...................................................................... 62
Table 6.4 Summary of LBA for the HFW GTG-O case .............................................................. 63
Table 6.5 Summary of LBA for the HFW GTG-M case .............................................................. 64
Table 6.6 Summary of LBA for the HFW GTG-U case .............................................................. 65
Table 6.7 Summary of LBA for the HFW GTS/STS case ........................................................... 66
Table 6.8 Summary of LBA for the HFW STS case ................................................................... 67
Table 6.9 Summary of LBA for the VHFW GTG-O case............................................................ 68
Table 6.10 Summary of LBA for the VHFW GTG-M case ......................................................... 69
Table 6.11 Summary of LBA for the VHFW GTG-U case .......................................................... 70
Table 6.12 Summary of LBA for the VHFW GTS/STG case ...................................................... 71
Table 6.13 Summary of LBA for the VHFW STS case ............................................................... 72
Table 6.14 Summary of LBA for the WNW GTG-O case ........................................................... 73

xii
Table 6.15 Summary of LBA for the WNW GTG-M case .......................................................... 74
Table 6.16 Summary of LBA for the WNW GTG-U case ........................................................... 75
Table 6.17 Summary of LBA for the WNW GTS/STG/STS case ............................................... 76

xiii
Chapter 1

Background – Wireless Radio

Robust communication is extremely essential for the success of any military

operation. The ability to communicate seamlessly across several arms of the military

using different types of radio equipment is of utmost importance to modern warfare.

Network Centric Operations (NCO) has been recognized as the cornerstone of military

transformation that is occurring in many countries around the world today. Defense

transformation for the U.S. military involves large-scale and possibly disruptive changes

in military weapon systems, organization, and concepts of operations. The Joint Tactical

Radio System (JTRS) is the next-generation of radios to be used to accomplish the NCO.

The JTRS are software defined radios (SDRs) and will work with existing military

and civilian radios. While several waveforms have been proposed for use in the JTRS

system, the Wideband Network Waveform (WNW) has been of specific interest due to its

high data rate, Internet protocol (IP) capability and its ability for mobile ad-hoc

networking (MANET)[2]. Figure 1.1 shows the WNW in use as a networking agent in the

JTRS. The WNW is based on Orthogonal Frequency Division Multiplexing (OFDM).

1
OFDM is a modulation and multiplexing technique which divides a higher data rate bit

stream into several parallel bit streams which are modulated on orthogonal sub-carriers.

Figure 1.1 WNW in use in JTRS [1]

However, other waveforms for use in the JTRS also need to be investigated

because the WNW cannot singlehandedly fulfill all the requirements of modern tactical

communications. There are situations where relatively low data rate, BLOS (Beyond Line

of Sight) communications would be needed (as in Ship to Shore Communications) and

only waveforms like the High Frequency Waveform (HFW) would be adequate for use

due to their ability to bend along the earth’s curvature owing to their ground wave

propagation mechanism.

2
1.1 Motivation

The need to study the performance of these radio waveforms under different

propagation channel conditions that arise in warfare, and the need to design a single radio

equipment that can incorporate as many different waveforms as possible have

necessitated this research. The incorporation of several waveforms into a single radio

equipment obviates the need for troops to carry multiple equipment. The three waveforms

that have been considered for this thesis are the High Frequency Waveform (HFW), Very

High Frequency Waveform (VHFW) and the OFDM based WNW. Apart from its

networking capabilities, the WNW is a useful waveforms in combating the effect of

fading and multipath that fast moving users experience in a time varying radio channel.

1.2 Radio Channel

Thorough understanding of the radio channel will facilitate the effective design of the

waveforms of interest. Radio signals generally propagate according to the mechanism of

reflection, diffraction and scattering, which roughly characterize the radio propagation by

three nearly independent phenomena: Path Loss (signal power variance with distance),

Shadowing (or long-term fading) and Multipath (or short-term) fading [3]. Except path

loss, which is only distance dependent, the other two phenomena can be statistically

described by fading models with parameters determined by using experimental radio

3
propagation measurements. Long term fading represents the average signal power

attenuation due to motion between transmitter and receiver over large areas. Short term

fading refers to rapid changes in signal amplitude and phase that occur as a result of small

changes in the spatial separation between the transmitter and receiver. There are many

distributions that well describe these fading channels. A fading distribution is the

statistical characterization of the variation of the envelope of the received signal over

time. It is generally accepted that the path strength at any delay is characterized by the

short term distributions over a spatial dimension of a few hundred wavelengths, and

lognormal distribution over areas whose dimensions are much larger. These propagation

phenomena are discussed into details in Chapter four.

1.3 Thesis Contribution

While several publications show results of Eb/No required to produce a specific BER in

either AWGN or fading channel, this thesis takes it a little step further by using Link

Budget Analysis to provide an estimate of the propagation range of those waveforms

when they are actually incorporated into practical systems. This gives designers heads-up

about what to expect before these radios are fabricated. Also, within the scope of our

work, this thesis identified the design parameter that yields the greatest range

improvement in tactical radio design.

4
1.4 Thesis Outline

This thesis consists of seven chapters and appendix. Chapter one talked about the

motivation for this work and its contribution while Chapter two describes the first two

waveforms of interests – HFW and VHFW into details. Chapter three is solely dedicated

to the WNW - being of utmost interest to this work - and describes into details the OFDM

principle on which it is based. The FEC method used in error correction and the

modulation schemes used for it were also described. Chapter 4 describes the propagation

environment that are envisaged for this work and later focuses on the three main

phenomena that characterize a radio channel – Path loss, Shadowing and Multipath

(fading). The different propagation models that were used in estimating the Path loss

were also discussed. The chapter is concluded by fading channel models and other issues

that are typical of them. Chapter five introduces Link Budget Analyses and the

parameters essential for its implementation. Chapter six discusses the results of the LBA

performed and the estimate of the propagation range. The effects on the variation of the

propagation range when several parameters were varied were also studied. Chapter seven

provides conclusions and makes recommendation for future work.

5
Chapter 2

Waveform Design

Due to the different design goals like high data rate, networking capabilities, BLOS

operation, power conservation requirement that must be met by a tactical communication

equipment, different waveforms are necessary for use in its design. A single waveform

cannot fulfill these requirement all by itself. This chapter discusses the design and the

parameters of the three waveforms of interest to this thesis: High Frequency Waveform

(HFW), Very High Frequency Waveform (VHFW), and the Wideband Network

Waveform (WNW).

2.1 High Frequency Waveform

The HFW is based on the MIL-STD 188-110B [19] which uses a BPSK modulator

for generating its HF waveform. The HFW was simulated to operate on center frequency

of 27 MHz. The 27 MHz band was chosen to avoid the noise inherently present in the

lower end of the HF band in the radio frequency spectrum. The detection bandwidth used

6
for simulating was 4 KHz. Although the data rate of the HFW is low, it is very useful for

LOS link establishment due to the propagation mechanism that exists at the high

frequency band.

2.1.1 HFW Waveform Parameters

The HFW parameters are as discussed below. The BPSK waveform was simulated to

propagate in a Rayleigh fading channel which consists of two independent but equal

average power Rayleigh fading paths, with a fixed 2 ms delay between paths, and with a

fading (two sigma) bandwidth (BW) of 1 Hz. Both signal and noise power were

measured in a 3 kHz bandwidth. BPSK is a modulation scheme in which 1 bit is encoded

per symbol. The signal constellation has just 2 symbols and they are shown in Figure 2.1.

Table 2.1 shows how the symbols are mapped into bits.

Figure 2.1 BPSK Signal Constellation [20]

Table 2.1 Mapping of Bits to BPSK Symbols

Bit 0 1
Symbol 0 1

7
2.1.2 HFW FEC Coding
Digital systems - although more resilient to noise than analog systems - are totally

not immune to noise. To detect and correct errors that signals pick up in their propagation

from transmitter to receiver, Forward Error Correction (FEC) schemes are used. This is

done by adding redundant bits to the encoded data by using a pre-determined algorithm.

There are two main categories of FEC. They are block coding and convolutional coding.

HFW uses convolutional codes for its FEC code.

Convolution code is based on encoding k input bits into n output bits using m

memory shift registers. The information sequence is divided into blocks of length k and

the codeword is divided into blocks of length n. For example when k=1, and n=2, each bit

is shifted into the encoder in turn while two n bits are generated for each k bit input. A

convolutional encoder’s name stems from the fact that it performs a discrete convolution

of the input stream with encoder’s impulse responses:

m
v ( j)
l = ∑ ul −i g i( j ) ,
k =0

where u is an input sequence, v ( j ) is a sequence from output j and g j is an

impulse response for output j . A simple convolution code is shown in Figure 2.2. It is a

(2, 1, 2) nonsystematic Feedforward convolutional encoder.

8
 v (0)
+

v (1)
+

Figure 2.2 Rate 1/2 Convolution Encoder with memory order m = 2 for HFW

The generator sequences of this encoder with memory order m are written as

g ( 0) = ( g 0( 0) , g 1( 0) , ⋅ ⋅ ⋅ , g m( 0) )

g (1) = ( g 0(1) , g1(1) , ⋅ ⋅ ⋅ , g m(1) )

.

For the encoder of Figure 2.2, the generator sequences are

g ( 0) = (1 1 1)

g (1) = (1 0 1) .

Assuming the length of information sequence u is h , the two output sequences v ( 0)

and v (1) has the length of h + m . The convolution operation implies that

vl( 0) = u l + u l −1 + u l − 2 …………….…………………………..2.1

vl(1) = u l + u l − 2 , ……..………………………………….2.2

where u l −i = 0 for all l < i , and all operations are modulo-2. After encoding, the two

output sequences are multiplexed into a single sequence, that is, the codeword.

v = (v 0( 0) , v0(1) , v1( 0) , v1(1) , v 2( 0) , v 2(1) , ⋅ ⋅ ⋅ ).

So the length of the codeword is 2(h + m) .

9
 For example, assuming that the information sequence is u = (1 0 111 0) with length

h = 6 . From the equation 2.1 and 2.2, we obtain the two output sequences each of which

has the length of h + m = 8

v ( 0) = (1 1 0 0 1 0 1 0)

v (1) = (1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0)

The encoded codeword becomes

v = (11,10,00,01,10,01,11,00)

The block interleaver used is designed to separate neighboring bits in the punctured

block code as far as possible over the span of the interleaver with the largest separations

resulting for the bits that were originally closest to each other. Two types of interleaver

were used: Long and Short. The size of the interleaver also varied for the different data

rates of operation of the HFW modem. Table 2.2 shows the configuration of the HFW

waveform used in this thesis. The Eb/N0 were taken at BER values of 10-5 .

Table 2.2 HFW configuration [6]

HFW

Data Rate Modulation FEC Coding Eb/N0 @10-5

75 bps BPSK Conv. Rate 1/8 2

150 bps BPSK Conv. Rate 1/8 5

300 bps BPSK Conv. Rate 1/4 7

600 bps BPSK Conv. Rate 1/2 7

1.2 kbps BPSK Conv. Rate 1/2 11

2.4 kbps BPSK Conv. Rate 1/2 18

10
 Table 2.3 HFW configuration and its interleaver sizes [20]
Detection Data Code Modulation
Waveform Frequency Mode Interleaver Size
Bandwidth Rate Rate Scheme

1/2 long:20×36
Fixed
Conv. short:10×9
75bps BPSK
long:40×144
FH 1/16
short:40×18
Fixed 1/8 long:40×144
150bps BPSK
FH 1/8 short:40×18
1/4
2 MHz ~ Fixed long:40×144
300bps Conv. BPSK
HFW 3KHz short:40×18
FH ¼
29.999MHz
Fixed ½ long:40×144
600bps BPSK
FH ½ short:40×18
Fixed ½ long:40×288
1200bps BPSK
FH ½ short:40×36
Fixed ½ long:40×576
2400bps BPSK short:40×72
FH 2/3

2.2 Very High Frequency Waveform

The VHFW is a based on the MIL-STD for VHFW which uses a QPSK and QAM

modulator for generating its VHFW. Both 16 QAM and 32 QAM configuration have

been used. All the modulation The VHFW was simulated to operate on center frequency

of 60 MHz. The 60 MHz band was selected as to avoid the commercial FM radio band in

the radio frequency spectrum. The detection bandwidth used for simulating was 25 KHz.

Table 2.4 shows the configuration of the VHFW.

11
 Table 2.4 VHFW configuration and its interleaver sizes [20]
Detection Data Code Modulation
Waveform Frequency Mode Interleaver Size
Bandwidth Rate Rate Scheme

R=1/4
9KQPSK long:192×150short:120×60
Conv.
18K ½ QPSK long:120×120 short:60×60
1/2
36K Fixed 16QAM long:120×120 short:60×60
Conv.
45K ½ 32QAM long:120×120 short:60×60
2/3
60K 32QAM long:108×100 short:45×60
VHFW Conv.
30~88MHz 25KHz
long:192×150
6k ¼ QPSK
short:120×60
1/2
12K QPSK long:120×120 short:60×60
Conv.
FH
24K ½ 16QAM long:120×120 short:60×60
30K ½ 32QAM long:120×120 short:60×60
2/3
40K 32QAM long:108×100 short:45×60
Conv.

2.2.1 VHFW Waveform Parameters

The VHFW parameters are as discussed below. The QPSK waveform was simulated to

propagate in a Rayleigh fading channel. The fading effect was simulated as a 4-path

Rayleigh channel with a uniformly spaced delay spread of 150 µs and an average power

gain of -6 dB, 0 dB, -7 dB, and -22 dB for each path component, respectively. The path

gains are also normalized to 1. For an assumed vehicle velocity of v = 60 km/hr, a

maximum Doppler shift of 4.89 Hz was taken into account. The signal constellation for

12
QPSK has four symbols with each carrying 2 bits. This is shown in Figure 2.3. Table 2.4

shows how the symbols are mapped into bits.

Figure 2.3 QPSK Signal Constellation [20]

Table 2.5 Mapping of Bits to QPSK Symbols

Dibit 00 01 10 11
Symbol 1 0 2 3

The signal constellation of 16 QAM has sixteen symbols each carrying 4 bits. Figure 2.4

shows how the constellation looks. Gray coding is used so as to make detection easy.

Contiguous symbols are allowed to differ only in one bit position using gray coding.

13
 Figure 2.4 16-QAM Signal Constellation [20]

Just like the signal constellation of 16 QAM, the 32-QAM is Gray coded and has

thirty-two symbols each carrying 5 bits. This signal constellation is shown in Figure 2.5.

When the VHFW is used in this modulation configuration, data rates of 30 kbps, 40 kbps,

45kbps, and 60 kbps are attainable.

Figure 2.5 32-QAM Signal Constellation [20]

14
2.2.2 VHFW FEC Coding
Like the HFW, the Forward Error Control coding used for the VHFW is Convolution

code. The same basic description of Convolution codes applies to the VHFW. The

difference is the code rate. The code rates of the convolution code used for the VHFW

1 1 2
are , , and .
4 2 3

2.3 Introduction to the Wideband Network Waveform

The WNW has been of specific interest for use in wireless tactical communication

systems due to its networking capabilities and its high data rate. The WNW is based on

Orthogonal Frequency Division Multiplexing which is a multicarrier and multiplexing

system that divides a high rate stream into several parallel orthogonal low rate streams in

a bid to introduce resilience to multipath effects that are inevitable on the battle field. The

concept of OFDM and the details of the WNW are expounded upon in Chapter three.

15
Chapter 3

WNW and OFDM Basics

Since the Wideband Network Waveform design is based on OFDM, the need to

understand the working principle of OFDM becomes necessary. This chapter focuses on

the basic concepts of OFDM.

3.1 Analogy of OFDM in real life

Imagine for a moment that you have a $ 1,000 to invest in stocks. You might decide

to invest the entire money in a single company or spread it over a number of companies.

Investing the all the money in a single company simply means your investment can be

lost in its entirety if the company goes down. Why not play safe and invest $1 in 1000

different companies at the same time? Even if some tens or even hundreds of the

companies go down, you can still recover an integral part of your initial investment, or

even all of it: if your stocks in the un-affected companies appreciate in value.

16
3.1.1 OFDM Principle
The simple analogy above effectively describes the working principle of Orthogonal

Frequency Division Multiplexing. OFDM belongs to a family of transmission schemes

called multicarrier modulation in which a high data rate bit stream is divided into several

parallel low data rates streams where each of the low-rate streams is modulated on

separate carriers called sub-carriers. Figure 3.1 shows an example with N subcarriers.

N
These consists of the center frequency (0), the negative subcarriers and the positive
2
 N  
   − 1 subcarriers. OFDM can be seen as a either a modulation or multiplexing
 2  

technique. It is a modulation technique because each of the subcarrier is independently

modulated, while it becomes a multiplexing technique because of the combination of the

several subcarriers into a single signal before transmission.

Figure 3.1 Parallel OFDM Subcarriers

3.2 Orthogonality of Subcarriers

The practicality of OFDM strongly relies on the principle of orthogonality.

Orthogonality means the existence of a precise mathematical relationship between the

17
frequencies of the chosen subcarriers in the system. This can be explained from both time

and frequency domain perspectives.

3.2.1 Time Domain Explanation

To ensure orthogonality of subcarriers to one another, the subcarriers must have an

integer number of cycles over the symbol period TS . This stipulation ensures that the

integral of each subcarrier over symbol period TS is zero. Intuitively, this means that if

several orthogonal subcarriers (like the 3 shown in Figure 3.2) are generated, the average

of their positive and negative areas is zero over the period.

If the OFDM bandwidth is B , and the frequency of the first subcarrier is chosen to

have integer number of cycles over symbol period TS , the spacing between adjacent

B
subcarriers (subcarrier bandwidth) is set to be to be = , where B is the nominal
N
bandwidth (equal to data rate), and N is the number of subcarriers. When these are

ensured, the subcarriers become orthogonal to one another over the symbol duration TS .

Figure 3.2 Integer number of cycles over the symbol Period

18
3.2.2 Frequency Domain Explanation
Orthogonality can also be explained from the frequency domain point of view. If

the subcarriers are spaced from one another by any amount equal to the reciprocal of the

symbol period of the data signals, the resulting sinc (sin x/x) frequency response curve of

the signals is such that the first nulls occur at the subcarrier frequencies on the adjacent

channels. This is depicted in Figure 3.3b. With this arrangement, the modulation on one

channel will not produce intercarrier interference (ICI) in the adjacent channels. The

receiver is then required to compute the spectra values at those points corresponding to

the maxima of individual subcarriers. Due to the fact that the maximum of a subcarrier

corresponds to zeros of other subcarrier, each subcarrier can be demodulated

independently of the others when perfect synchronization is achievable.

Figure 3.3(a) Single Subcarrier

Figure 3.3(b) Six subcarriers in frequency domain

19
 When orthogonality is achieved, the need to have non-overlapping subcarrier

channels (as in Frequency Division Multiplexing) to avoid intercarrier interference also

becomes unnecessary. This is shown in Figure 3.4 (a) and (b). This consequentially yields

a waveform with high spectral efficiency as shown in 3.4 b.

Figure 3.4 (a) Conventional FDM technique (b) Bandwidth savings by using overlapping
orthogonal subcarriers [4]

3.3 Generation of OFDM Subcarriers using IDFT

Considering the number of parallel subcarriers (N) required to design a practical

OFDM system, it would be impractical to think of generating these subcarrier frequencies

by designing oscillators operating on all different frequencies to work in parallel. Owing

to this fact, OFDM generation is purely a mathematical operation that is achieved by DSP

techniques. The Inverse Discrete Fourier Transform (IDFT) - which is a special form of

Fourier transform - transforms a sequence of discrete data from frequency domain to

time domain. It has been shown that the OFDM signal is equivalent to the IDFT of the

data sequence block taken N at a time. This makes the discrete time implementation of

20
OFDM transmitters and receivers extremely easy using IDFT and DFT, respectively.

3.3.1 IDFT vs IFFT – Time Complexity

Although the generation of OFDM symbols is easily achieved mathematically using

concept of IDFT at the transmitter side and DFT at the receiver side to transform the

received sequence back to frequency domain, the implementation of IDFT/DFT pair in

actual systems becomes impractical when the number of subcarriers (N) become large.

The IFFT/FFT pair is a more efficient way of OFDM symbol generation and is

conventionally favored over the IDFT/DFT pair because of its faster computation time.

The number of arithmetic operations required to implement an IFFT/FFT in hardware is

on the order of N log 2 N while that of the IDFT/DFT is on the order of N 2 . To

implement a 64-subcarrier OFDM system, only 384 computations are required for the

IFFT/FFT compared with 4096 needed for the IDFT/DFT. This clearly shows that the

IFFT/FFT pair is more than ten times faster for this number of subcarriers, and even

becomes faster for large values of N .

3.4 ICI and ISI

Inter Carrier Interference (ICI) affects OFDM subcarriers when orthogonality between

them is lost due to frequency offsets caused by non-synchronization of the transmitter and

receiver oscillators. This can be combated by proper frequency offset estimation and robust

synchronization techniques. ICI may also be caused by symbol timing and sampling rate

21
offset. Inter Symbol Interference (ISI), like for other communication systems, is a

fundamental problem for OFDM due to multipath and the time-varying nature of the

channel. Two adjacent symbols are likely to experience different channel characteristics

including time delays. ISI can be effectively mitigated by guard time and cyclic prefix,

which are discussed in the next section.

3.5 Guard Time and Cyclic Prefix

To mitigate the effect of time-dispersion that is inevitable in a multipath channel,

OFDM symbols need to be protected from the deleterious effect of delay spread. The

insertion of a guard band after the transmission of an OFDM symbol - though being an

overhead - effectively provides protection for the next symbol to be transmitted. The

guard time Tg must be designed to be larger than the expected maximum delay spread

τ max . Intuitively, this is necessary to allow the ‘dust to settle’ before transmitting another

symbol.

Figure 3.5 Time dispersion on OFDM system without Guard band [5].

22
 The guard time Tg is extremely important for OFDM performance because the cyclic

prefix, which is transmitted during the guard interval, consists of the end of the OFDM

symbol copied into the guard interval, and the guard interval is transmitted followed by

the OFDM symbol. The reason that the guard interval consists of a copy of the end of the

OFDM symbol is so that the receiver will integrate over an integer number of sinusoid

cycles when it performs OFDM demodulation with the FFT.

Figure 3.6 Time dispersion on OFDM system with Guard band and Cyclic Prefix [5].

3.6 Windowing

Widowing is a technique used to eliminate the sharp phase transitions that are caused by

modulation that exist between the symbol boundaries. If this is not eliminated, out of

band interference is introduced. Windowing an OFDM symbol makes the amplitude go

23
smoothly to zero at the symbol boundaries. The raised cosine window is commonly used.

3.7 Wideband Network Waveform Parameters

The Wideband Network Waveform being based on OFDM principle, uses 512 point

FFT where 384 are data subcarriers, 48 are pilot subcarriers used for synchronization, 79

are used as guard bands and 1 is the center frequency. The bandwidth of the WNW is 4

MHz. This results in subcarrier spacing of 7.81 kHz when 4 MHz bandwidth is divided

up into 512. The parameters are shown in Table 3.1.

The cyclic prefix duration T g is designed to be 32 µs which means the maximum

delay spread it can tolerate. The data symbol duration Tb is 128 µs . The sum of T g and

Tb makes the total symbol duration Ts to be 160 µs . These are shown in Figure 3.7.

Table 3.1 OFDM symbol Parameters

FFT Size Subcarrier Spacing Cyclic Prefix ( T g ) Data ( Tb ) CP/Data

512 7.81 KHz 32 µs (128 Samples) 128 µs (512 Samples) 1/4

CP Data

Tg Tb

Ts = T g + Tb

Figure 3.7 OFDM symbol

24
 Figures 3.8 and 3.9 shows the configuration of the WNW transmitter and receiver

respectively.

Figure 3.8 WNW Transmitter [20]

Figure 3.9 WNW Receiver [20]

3.7.1 Forward Error Correction

Convolution codes is the Forward Error Correction (FEC) code used for the WNW.

Convolution codes are defined by three parameters (n, k , m ) , where n is the number of

output bits, k is the number of input bits, m is the number of memory of shift

1 1
registers. k / n is called the code rate. Code rates of and were originally
2 3
1 1 1 1
designed. The lower code rates of , and were generated from the parent
4 8 16 2
1 1
code by using repetition. The rate is generated by repeating the rate encoded bits
4 2
1 1
twice, rate is generated by repeating the rate 1/2 encoded bits four times and rate
8 16

is generated by repeating the rate 1/2 encoded bits eight times.

25
 The WNW also uses a constraint length of L = 7. The constraint length L represents

the number of bits in the encoder memory that affect the generation of the n output bits.

Constraint Length, L = k (m + 1) . k also refers to the number of input bit given to the

encoder for a single clock duration. An information sequence of length kL is encoded

into a code word of length N = n(1 + m ) . The decoding is done using Viterbi algorithm.

3.7.2 Interleaver
An interleaver is used to randomize burst errors that occur due to deep fades digital

signals encounter in a fading channel. The WNW uses a block interleaver to mitigate this

effect and improve the performance of the decoder.

3.7.3 Modulator
The WNW uses three modulation schemes namely: BPSK, QPSK and 16-QAM.

These schemes churn out 1, 2 and 4 bits per symbol respectively. BPSK modulation

represents binary data by two signals with different phases, typically 0 and π . This is

written as:

S i (t ) = A cos( 2πf c t + θ i ) , 0 ≤ t ≤ Tb , θ i = 0, π , i = 1, 2 (3.1)

Equation 3.1 can be re-written as:

S1 (t ) = A cos 2πf c t , 0 ≤ t ≤ Tb , for ‘0’

S 2 (t ) = A cos( 2πf c t + π ) = − A cos 2πf c t , 0 ≤ t ≤ Tb , for ‘1’ (3.2)

where A is a constant amplitude, f c is the carrier frequency, θ i is the carrier phase

26
and Tb is the bit duration. Figure 3.10 shows the BPSK Constellation.

0 1

-1 +1

Figure 3.10 BPSK Constellation

01 11
+1

-1
00 10

Figure 3.11 QPSK Constellation

QPSK constellation on the other hand has four symbols made up of two bits. These

are 00,01,11,10. These are shown in Figure 3.11. QPSK is represented mathematically as:

2Es
S i (t ) = cos(2πf c t + θ i ) , 0 ≤ t ≤ Ts , i = 1, 2, 3, 4 (3.3)
Ts

27
 (2i − 1)π
where θi = (3.4)
4
where E s is the symbol energy, f c is the carrier frequency, θ i is the carrier phase and

Ts is the symbol duration.

16 QAM symbols are comprised of four bits. There are 16 different symbols from

0000 to 1111. Its constellation diagram is shown in Figure 3.12.

0010 0110 1110 1010

+3
0011 0111 1111 1011
+1

-3 -1 +1 +3
-1
0001 0101 1101 1001

-3
0000 0100 1100 1000

Figure 3.12 16 QAM Constellation

3.7.4 Data Rate calculation

For the three baseband modulation – BPSK, QPSK and 16 QAM, the data rates used

were calculated based on the bandwidth and the sampling rate. The bandwidth the same

as the sampling rate. The bandwidth of 4 MHz was used for all the modulation schemes.

This equates to a sampling rate f s of 4 MSamples/s.

1
With a 4 MHz sampling rate, the sampling period becomes = 0.25 µs
fs

28
For 512 FFT points(samples) used for the WNW, the sampling period Tb for the FFT

window becomes:

Tb = 512 × 0.25µs = 128µs

Assuming a CP period Tg that is ¼ of the FFT window size,

1
Tg = × 128 = 32 µs
4
Since the symbol duration Ts equals the sum of the sampling period Tb and the

cyclic prefix period Tg , Ts becomes,

Ts = (128 + 32) µs = 160 µs

Assuming BPSK where a symbol contains one bit, the symbol rate then becomes:

1 1
Symbol rate = = = 6.25 kbps
Ts 160 µs

The data rate was calculated by the following relationship:

Datarate = Symbolrate × NumberofDataSubcarriers × NumberofBitsperSymbol × CodeRate

Number of Data Subcarriers = 384

Number of Bits per Symbol = 1 (BPSK), 2 (QPSK), 4 (16QAM)

1 1 1 1 1
Code rate = , , , and
2 3 4 8 16

29
Chapter 4

Channel Impairment Factors

This chapter discusses the channel impairment factors that affect radio propagation.

4.1 Propagation Environment

The propagation environment mainly considered for this thesis is the propagation

over ground and sea. The several cases that arise in these considerations are: Ground to

Ground (GTG) and Ground to Ship (GTS). The Ground to Ground cases are further

classified into Ground to Ground open terrain (GTG-O), Ground to Ground Mountain

Blockage (GTG-M) and Ground to Ground Urban (GTG-U) area cases. The sea cases are

the Ground to Ship (GTS) and Ship to Ground (STG) – which are basically the same due

to the law of reciprocity in ground-sea propagation.

4.1.1 Ground to Ground Open Terrain (GTG-O)

The GTG-O is a propagation environment in which the transmitter and receiver have a

clear line of sight and there can be ground reflection of the transmitted signal. The

30
transmitter antenna height is denoted as ht , while the receiver antenna height is denoted

as hr . This is shown in Figure 4.1.

Figure 4.1 Ground to Ground Open Terrain (GTG-O)

4.1.2 Ground to Ground Mountain Blockage (GTG-M)

When a Mountain exists between the transmitter and receiver, the propagation

environment that arise is the GTG-M. There is no line of sight between them and the

propagated signal only reaches the receiver by the diffraction of the top of the blockage.

This is can be explained by Huygens construction, which was devised to predict the

successive positions of an advancing wave front. Diffraction is the bending of radio

waves around obstacles that have sharp irregularities (edges). It occurs for waves that

have wavelengths in the order and size of the diffracting objects. Path loss prediction

based on diffraction mechanism used for this environment is the ITU-R single knife edge

diffraction model. This is shown in Figure 4.2. The transmitter and receiver antenna

heights are represented as ht and hr respectively.

31
 Figure 4.2 Ground to Ground Mountain Blockage (GTG-M)

4.1.3 Ground to Ground Urban (GTG-U)

When propagation takes place in a heavily built-up area where the line of sight

between transmitter and receiver is blocked by buildings and other obstacles, the

environment is modeled as a GTG-U environment. This is shown in Figure 4.3.

Figure 4.3 Ground to Ground Urban Area (GTG-U)

4.1.4 Ship to Ground (STG)

The Ship to Ground propagation models the case in which a communication link is

established between a transmitter located on a ship and receiver located on ground. Both

land and sea contribute a quota to the propagation path. However, the position of the

receiver is different for the three waveforms considered. Due the propagation

characteristic of HFW and VHFW, a ground quota is allowed in the propagation path.

32
However, for the WNW, the high frequency of operation (and consequently the high path

loss) requires the propagation path to be restricted to only water – if reasonable

propagation range R is to be achieved. This means that the transmitter (or receiver for the

STG) is placed at the shore to enable the whole propagation to be over the sea. Also, the

placement of the transmitter (or receiver for the STG) at the shore is more practical. The

case of the WNW GTS(STG) is shown in Figure 4.4.

Figure 4.4 WNW Ship to Ground (STG)/Ground to Ship (GTS)

4.1.5 Ground to Ship (GTS)

The Ground to Ship propagation is exactly like the Ship to Ground propagation

discussed above with the position of the transmitter and receiver reversed. The

propagation loss incurred are the same for both the GTS and the STG.

4.1.6 Ship to Ship (STS)

The Ship to Ship propagation models the communication between a transmitter and

receiver both located on the sea. The propagation loss is due to the loss over the sea alone

as there is no ground path involved. It is also assumed that islands that might exist along

the propagation path do not contribute to the loss of the signal.

33
4.2 Path Loss Models

The Path loss defined here is solely incurred due to the distance between the

transmitter and the receiver. However, like any other radio communications, It is

frequency dependent because higher frequencies attenuate more than lower ones.

For all the six propagation cases discussed above, Table 4.1 shows the propagation

models that were used in the path loss estimation. Details of these models are discussed

in this section.

Table 4.1 Propagation Model [6]

PROPAGATION MODEL
Cases HFW VHFW WNW
GTG-O GRWAVE Plane Earth Hata (Open Area)
GTG-M Lichun Plane Earth+ITU-R Hata (Open Area)+ITU-R
GTG-U Lichun Egli Hata (Urban Area)
STG/GTS MGPP MGPP MGPP
STS GRWAVE MGPP MGPP

4.2.1 Hata-Okomura (Hata’s) Model

Hata’s model [7] is a very accurate model when predicting losses in the urban area case.

It predicts the total path loss along a radio propagation link and covers the frequency

range of 150 MHz to 1.5 GHz. Based on Okomura’s work on propagation loss prediction,

Hata constructed an empirical formula to assess propagation losses in urban areas for

systems employing UHF (288 – 910 MHz) and VHF (50 – 250 MHz) land mobile radio

34
services. The model was based on the propagation loss between systems employing

isotropic antennas, Quasi-smooth terrain and urban propagation loss presented as the

standard formula. For other environments the incorporation of correction factors is

required. Hata’s standard empirical formula, given in equation (4.1), for propagation

loss a function of operating frequency fc, base antenna height hb, mobile antenna height

hm, and transmission distance R. It is mathematically expressed as:

LP (dB ) = 69.55 + 26.16 log10 f c − 13.82 log10 hb − a (hm ) + (44.9 − 6.55 log10 hb ) log10 R (4.1)

for the following parameter ranges:

fc: 150 – 1500 MHz [Unit: Megahertz]

hb: 30 - 200 m [Unit: Meters]

hm: 1 - 10 m [Unit: Meters]

R: 1 - 20 km [Unit: Meters]

Note that a(hm) is the correction factor in dB for vehicular station antenna height and is

defined for several varying environments as:

Medium-small city

a (hm ) = (1.1log10 f c − 0.7)hm − (1.56 log10 f c − 0.8) (4.2)

Large City

a (hm ) = 8.29(log10 1.54hm ) 2 − 1.10 for fc ≤ 200 MHz (4.3)

35
 a (hm ) = 3.2(log10 11.75hm ) 2 − 4.97 for fc ≥ 400 MHz (4.4)

Suburban Area

The path loss for Suburban Area is taken as a corrected version of the urban area path loss

and is given by:

  f c  
2

LPs (dB ) = LP {Urban} − 2log10    − 5.4 (4.5)

  28  

Open Areas

The loss in an open area is again based on urban area losses:

LP O (dB ) = LP {Urban} − 4.78(log10 f c ) 2 + 18.33 log10 f c − 40.94 (4.6)

For a receiver antenna height (hm) of 1.7 m operating in a large city on a frequency fc

of 500 MHz, the antenna correction factor a(hm) of equation 4.4 gives 0.44 dB when

those parameters are plugged into equation 4.4. When the correction factor a(hm) is

plugged into equation 4.1, the estimate the path loss expected at a specific distance R

from the transmitter whose height is hb is generated. Using hb of 1.7 m and a distance of

0.54 km, a path loss (Lp) of 124.92 dB was calculated from equation 4.1.

4.2.2 Egli’s Model

Egli’s path loss model [8] is an accurate model for computing the path loss as a

single quantity. This model predicts the path loss as a whole and does not subdivide the loss

into free space loss and other losses. The data used in deriving the model was obtained (by

36
the U.S. Federal Communications Commission) from various locations in the United

States including New York City; Washington D.C.; Cleveland and Toledo, Ohio;

Harrisburg, Easton, Reading, Pittsburgh and Scranton, Pennsylvania; Kansas City,

Missouri; Cedar Rapids, Iowa; San Francisco, California; Bridgeport Connecticut;

Nashville, Tennessee; Fort Wayne, Indiana, Richmond and Norfolk, Virginia and Newark,

New Jersey. With regard to UHF (288 MHz – 910 MHz) measurements, 804 miles on 63

different radials are represented in the data. The means of measuring received power was

not the same in all locations. In all, three different techniques were used, continuous mobile

recording sampling every 0.2 miles, spot measurements (properly weighted to be

considered unbiased), and clusters of measurements. For VHF (50 MHz – 250 MHz)

transmissions, approximately 1400 measurements, consisting of continuous data analyzed

over 1 and 2 mile sectors, were also included in the data set. Egli’s model [13] can be

written as:

LEgli (dB ) = 117 + 40 log10 D + 20 log10 f c − 20 log10 ( H T H R ) (4.7)

where D is the transmission distance in miles, fc is the transmission carrier frequency in

MHz, HT is the transmitting antenna height above ground level in feet and HR is receiver

antenna above ground level in feet.

4.2.3 GRWAVE Model

GRWAVE [9][10] is a computer program and has been used by ITU-R to produce the

37
series of CCIR (reference) curves which show how vertically polarized electrical field

strength varies as a function of range, ground type, and frequency (10 KHz to 30 MHz).

This computer program was developed by for the prediction of ground wave propagation

path loss at the HF frequency band. The program takes as inputs the Frequency of

transmission, Effective radiated power, Polarization type (Vertical or Horizontal), the

Ratio of the effective earth radius to the actual earth radius, Ground conductivity in S/M,

Ground dielectric constant relative to free space, Antenna heights and the Distance

between transmitter and receiver. In applying the GRWAVE path loss prediction program

to system planning purposes, it is essential to have a clear understanding of the reference

radiator used in their calculation. The transmitting antenna is a Hertzian vertical dipole

5λ
with a current length product (dipole moment) of , where λ is the wavelength of
2π
the frequency used. The GRWAVE model assumes that the radio wave propagates over

a smooth homogeneous spherical earth for frequencies between 0.03 to 30 MHz and the

antenna heights of zero to 20 km. Link length from 1 to 10,000 km. The conductivity and

permittivity values used for the GRWAVE are shown in Table 4.2. Also Figure 4.5 shows

the screenshot of the GRWAVE for the HFW and the values of the parameters used.

Table 4.2 Conductivity and permittivity values for Land and Sea [6].

Ground Type Conductivity Permittivity

σ (S/m) ε r

Sea 5 70
Land 0.01 15

38
 Figure 4.5 Screenshot for the GRWAVE model as used for HFW

4.2.4 Millington’s Model

When the propagation path is inhomogeneous, special models like Millington’s

[11] are needed for estimating the path loss. Eckersley intuitively proposed (shown in

Figure 4.6a) using sections of the surfaced wave attenuation curves (like the ones by the

ITU-R) appropriate for the radio frequency and terrain type. That is the loss curves for

each terrain type are patched together in a piece-wise fashion to yield an overall

prediction; however, this model does not agree well with experiment. Moreover,

Eckersley’s method does not yield the same prediction value when transmitting from

transmitter (T) to receiver (R) as when transmitting from R to T. Millington, argued that

if T is well removed from point X (as shown in Figure 4.6), then the attenuation rate will

be dictated largely by terrain type 1 (ground with different conductivity and permittivity

39
value from ground type 2); likewise, if the transmission is launched from R and is well

removed from X, then the loss is largely governed by ground type 2 (ground with

different conductivity and permittivity value from ground type 1). Moreover, he argued

that reciprocity between bidirectional transmissions must be enforced. Thus, Millington

proposed applying Eckersley’s method in the T-R (forward) direction and the R-T

(reverse) direction. These two values are then averaged to yield the overall loss as shown

in Figure 4.6b. Millington’s method has been implemented in a Matlab as Millington

Propagation Predictor (MGPP) by [12][13].

(a) (b)

Figure 4.6 (a) Eckersley’s prediction method (b) Millington’s prediction method [10].

4.2.5 Lichun Model

Lichun model [14] was derived based on the experimental data collected at HF frequency

from 1993 through 1997 in Beijing, China. This model introduces the inclusion of three

building-complex parameters rb , rs and re , and a new height-gain factor, Gh . The

40
building-complex parameters represents the impact of buildings on ground waves in

urban areas and their values were selected based on our urban environment. The values

used were: 0.26, 0.5, 0.05 for rb , rs and re respectively.

The equation for the estimated path loss by Lichun model is written below:

L(dB) = L f + Lg + Ld + Lb + Ls + Le − Gh (4.8)

where:
Table 4.3 Lichun Model Parameters
Loss Component Equation Unit
1 Free Space Loss Lf dB
32.4 + 20 log 10 f + 20 log 10 R

2 Ground loss Lg dB
− 20 log 10 A

3 Propagation Distance loss Ld dB

16 log 10 R

4 Building loss Lb dB
95 log 10 (1 + rb )

5 Sight loss Ls dB
80 log 10 (1 + rs )

6 Environment loss Le dB
125 log 10 (1 + re )

7 New height gain factor Gh dB

20(1 + 0.02 R ) log 10 (ht + hr )

The equation parameters are given as:

1 × 10 −3
A= , (4.9)
2ϕ ( f c , σ , β ) R (m)

f c cos β
ϕ ( f c ,σ , β ) = 1.75 × 10 −4 (4.10)
σλ

41
 (ε + 1) f c
β = arctan (4.11)
1.8 × 10 4 σ

where

R: Link Length (km)

ht : Height of transmitting antenna

hr : Height of receiving antenna

f c : Operating frequency (MHz)

A : Attenuation factor of the ground

λ : Wavelength of the propagating wave

β : Phase constant

and the ground constants are:

ε = 15 and σ = 1× 10 −3 S/m (Weather is fine and cloudy)

Lichun model has been used to estimate the Path Loss in Urban and Mountain blockage

cases of the HF-AM propagation in the research work. The results show that the Loss

experienced in the Urban area propagation is more than the Loss incurred in the

Mountain blockage case since a single mountain was considered.

4.2.6 ITU-R Model

A mountain blockage scenario is the one with a hill or mountain in the signal

propagation path as shown in Figure 4.2. The mechanism that takes place in the

42
propagation of radio waves when there is a blockage between transmitter and receiver is

diffraction. Diffraction is the bending of radio waves around obstacles that have sharp

irregularities (edges). It occurs for waves that have wavelengths in the order and size of

the diffracting objects. Path loss prediction based on diffraction mechanism can be done

in two ways. These are: Smooth spherical earth diffraction and the Knife edge diffraction.

The smooth spherical earth diffraction is applicable in a scenario where the receiver is

located beyond the line of sight of the transmitter and there are no mountains in between.

A knife edge diffraction results when the LOS between a transmitter and receiver is

obstructed by a hill or mountain. A transmitted signal still reaches the receiver via

diffraction off the top on the obstacle in the path of the transmitter and the receiver. This

can be explained by Huygens construction, which was devised to predict the successive

positions of an advancing wave front.

If the hills are two or more, multiple knife edge diffraction occurs. It is also

noteworthy to say that the presence of obstacle sometimes leads to increased signal

strength at the receiver which is known as obstacle gain. This happens when the multiple

diffraction path with high loss is transformed into single edge diffraction path with less

loss [15].

The ITU-R model is one of several models (including Epstein – Peterson,

Deygout, Edward–Durkins and Blomquist - Ladell) which estimate diffraction loss due to

terrain blockage. Investigations have shown that the ITU-R model produced the result

43
closest to the empirical measurements [10]. In this model, the diffraction parameter v is a

dimensionless parameter and it is given by the formula:

2 1 1 
v=h  +  (4.12)
λ  d1 d 2 

Where λ is the wavelength of the signal and the parameters h, d1 and d2 are as shown in

Figure 4.2. Also, h is the height of the diffraction above the LOS between the transmitter

and receiver. The diffraction loss can be given as:

J (v) = 6.9 + 20log ( v 2 + 1 + v ) (dB) (4.13)

This diffraction loss is added to the path loss model (because both the transmitter and

receiver antenna heights are low and close to the ground) applicable to the frequency

range of interest.

4.2.7 Plane Earth Model

The plane earth loss is frequency independent. It has been found out that the loss

figure gotten from the calculation of the plane earth loss is not as high as that of

measured data so a clutter factor is added to the calculated figure to compensate for the

dB figure difference. It has be found to hold for particular distances and for horizontal

44
polarization [14]. The plane earth model formula is given as:

LPE (dB ) = 144.6 + 40 log10 d − 20 log10 (ht hr ) (4.14)

where d is distance between transmitting dipole antennas in miles, ht is the height of

transmitting antenna (ft), and hr is the height of receiving antenna (ft).

4.3 Shadowing – Long term fading

If a transmitter is placed at the center of an imaginary circle as shown in Figure 4.7,

the amount of signal power received at different points on its circumference by moving a

receiver round it does not necessarily have to be the same even though the points are

equidistant from the transmitter. Obstructions might be present between the transmitter

and the receiver at some points on the circumference while a line of sight might exists on

others. Unlike path loss which is distance dependent, Shadowing statistically describes

this effect and has been found to be a log-normally distributed random process.

Figure 4.7 Shadowing variation over different paths [16].

45
4.4 Multipath - Short term fading
When a transmitted signal reaches a receiver via several paths, several copies of it

appear at the receiver with several delays and gains. The time delay results in phase shifts

in the signal copies and results in the their destructive re-combination. This makes the

original signal to fade. Rayleigh and Rician are some of the statistical methods for

characterizing a multipath channel.

4.4.1 Rayleigh Fading Distribution

Rayleigh distribution are useful in the characterization of a wireless channel where a

line of sight (dominant path) does not exist. The received signal is only composed of

several multipath reflected signals. The signal components are also assumed to be

independent (uncorrelated), identical in amplitude and have random phases that are

uniformly distributed between 0 and 2π. The Probability Density Function (pdf) of the

Rayleigh distribution is given by:

 r (0 ≤ r )
 r2 
 exp − 
p( r ) = σ 2  2σ
2

(4.15)
0
 ( r < 0)

Where r is the signal envelope, σ is the Root Mean Square (RMS) value of the

received voltage signal, and σ 2 is the time-average power of the received signal. σ is

the spread of the distribution.

46
4.4.2 Rician Fading Distribution
When a dominant Line of Sight (LOS) component exists between the transmitter and

receiver, the channel is said to follow a Rician distribution and the LOS component is

called the specular component. As the amplitude of the specular component approaches

zero, the Rician pdf approaches a Rayleigh pdf [4]. The Rician pdf is given by,

 r  ( r 2 + V 2 )  rV (V ≥ 0, r ≥ 0 )
 exp  −  I O ( 2 )
p( r ) = σ 2  2σ 2
 σ (4.16)

0 ( r < 0)

where r is the signal envelope, V is the amplitude of the specular component of the

received signal and σ is the Root Mean Square (RMS) value of the received voltage

signal (the spread of the distribution). As V tends to zero, the pdf approaches a

Rayleigh pdf. I0(z) is the modified Bessel function of the first kind with order zero.

The Rician K-factor is defined as the ratio of signal power in dominant component

over the (local-mean) scattered components’ power which is

V2
K (dB)= 10 log10 . dB (4.17)
2σ 2

When K>>>1, the Rician distribution tends towards the Gaussian distribution about

the mean, which characterizes a non-fading channel.

47
4.4.3 Nakagami-m Fading Distribution

The sum of multiple independent and identically distributed (i.i.d.) Rayleigh-fading

signals have Nakagami-m distributed signal amplitude. Nakagami-m fading distribution

is a very important distribution due to its ease of manipulation and wide range of

applicability [17]. It also has been found to yield a satisfactory fit with measured fading

data over a wide range of frequency bands [18]. The Nakagami-m probability density

function of a signal’s envelope r is given by the formula,

2
2  m  2 m −1 −mr 2 Ω
p(r ) = r e
Γ ( m)  Ω 
(4.18)

r ≥ 0, m ≥ 0.5, Ω ≥ 0,

where Γ(.) is the gamma function, m = E2(x2)/var(x2) is the shape factor which

determines the severity of fading, and Ω = E(x2) is the mean square value of the

distribution. The Nakagami fading turns to a Rayleigh fading at m=1 and becomes a

one-sided Gaussian distribution for m = 0.5. The distribution becomes an impulse

(Dirac-delta function) when m = ∞, which implies an AWGN channel with no fading.

48
4.5 Other Fading Issues

4.5.1 Frequency Flat and Frequency Selective Channels

When fading affects all the spectral components of a transmitted signal in a similar

manner, the fading is said to be frequency flat. This is typical of narrowband systems. On

the other hand, when spectral components of a transmitted signal are affected by different

amplitude gains and phase shifts, the fading is said to be frequency selective – which is

characteristic of wideband systems like the OFDM.

4.5.2 Doppler Shift

When a transmitter and receiver are moving relative to one another, the frequency of

the received signal will deviate from that of the signal which was transmitted. When the

radios move towards each other, the received signal is higher than that of the transmitted

signal; the opposite is becomes true when they are moving further apart. The received

frequency is then given by:

fr = fc ± fd (4.19)

(shift) is governed by: where fd is the Doppler frequency (or Doppler shift) and fc is the

transmitting source carrier frequency. The Doppler frequency is defined as,

v
fd = cos θ (4.20)
λ
where v is the velocity of light in meters per second, λ is the carrier wavelength in meters,

and Ө is the angle between the transmitting source and the receiver’s direction of travel in

49
degrees.

4.5.3 Coherence Time and Doppler spread

Doppler spread and coherence time are parameters which describe the time varying

nature of the channel in a small-scale region. Doppler spread, Bd, is a metric used to define

the spectral broadening caused by the time rate of change of the mobile radio channel. It is

defined as the range of frequencies over which the received Doppler spectrum is essentially

non-zero. If a sinusoid of frequency fc is transmitted, the receiver will receive frequency

components in the range of fc ± fd, where fd is the Doppler frequency shift. Note that if the

baseband signal is significantly larger than Bd, then the effects of Doppler spread will be

negligible at the receiver.

Coherence time is the time dual of the Doppler spread and describes the time varying

nature of the frequency dispersion of the channel in the time domain. The coherence time

and Doppler spread are inversely proportional to each other,

1
TC = (4.21)
fd

50
Chapter 5

Link Budget Analysis

5.1 Link Budget

Link Budget Analysis is a very important tool in estimating the propagation range

that can be achieved by a transmitter with a specified power. If the propagation

environment is well known, this is a very good way of predicting the performance of a

radio equipment before it is manufactured. The link budget is achieved by taking account

of all the gains and losses in the propagation path. The net of the gains and losses allows

for a margin that would ensure that a receiver can still pick up the transmitter’s signal

even when the channel experiences the worst level of is attenuation. This chapter

describes all the necessary parameters for performing the link budget for the three tactical

waveform of interest to us.

5.2 Equipment Types

Two separate types of equipment types have been used for this thesis. They are the

51
manpack equipment and the vehicle mounted equipment.

5.2.1 Manpack Equipment

The manpack equipment is carried as back packs by its users. It has a smaller form factor

when compared to the vehicle mounted equipment and operates on less power.

5.2.2 Vehicle Equipment

The vehicle-mounted equipment is installed in vehicles where further power

amplification is provided so as to enhance the propagation range of the signal. The

antenna height (in meters), antenna gain (in decibel isotropic - dBi) and the transmitter

power (in watts) used for the three waveforms – HFW, VHFW and the WNW - are

considered are shown in Table 5.1. The dBi unit of the antenna gain is a measure which

stipulates the gain of an antenna relative to an isotropic radiator. An Isotropic radio is a

point source in which signal is radiated from the point to form a sphere. That means

radiation is equal in all directions. For example an antenna with a 0 dBi gain has the same

signal propagation ability as an isotropic radiator while an antenna -15 dBi gain is 15dB

‘weaker’ in propagation ability when compared to an isotropic radiator.

52
 Table 5.1 Parameters for Manpack and Vehicle Equipment

Antenna Height (m) Tx/Rx

HFW VHFW WNW

Manpack 2.52 1.70 1.70

Vehicle 7.30 2.80 2.80

Antenna Gain (dBi)

HFW VHFW WNW

Manpack -15 dBi -15 dBi 0 dBi

Vehicle -15 dBi -6 dBi 0 dBi

Tx Power (Watts)

HFW VHFW WNW

Manpack 20 W 5W 5W

Vehicle 100 W 50 W 50 W

5.3 Link Budget Parameters

To perform the link budget for the waveforms of our communications link, several

parameters are needed. These include the transmitter power, power back-off, carrier

center frequency, the height and the gain of the antenna, the thermal noise present in the

bandwidth of the signal, the noise figure of the receiver and the acceptable link margin to

the system designer.

5.3.1 Transmitter Power

The transmitter power used for this work are based on the two type of equipment

used. These are manpack and vehicle mounted equipment. The Manpack equipment

operates on 5 W of power while the vehicle mounted equipment operates on 50 W for

both the VHFW and the WNW. The HFW waveform uses two power levels – 20 W and

53
100W. All these were shown in Table 5.1.

5.3.2 Power Back-Off

When the power amplifier of a communication system is being pushed towards its

non-linear region (saturation), the power of the amplifier needs to be moved back to its

linear operating region. This process is called Power Back-Off. This was done to our

manpack and vehicle mounted equipment. The amount of power back off was 5.5 dB.

5.3.3 Center frequency

The center frequency used for the HFW is 27 MHz while the one used for the VHFW

is 60 MHz. The WNW uses a 500 MHz center frequency. The center frequency is

measured in MHz. The detection bandwidth used with these center frequencies of 27, 60

and 500 MHz are 4 KHz, 25 KHz, and 4 MHz respectively.

5.3.4 Antenna Height

The antenna height plays a very important role in the propagation range of a

transmitted signal. The antenna height used for the manpack equipment was 1.7 m while

the one for the vehicle mounted equipment was 2.8 m. The antenna height is measured in

meters.

54
 5.3.5 Antenna Gain
The antenna gain used in this thesis is the one relative to an isotropic radiator. This is

specified in dBi. The antenna gain value that was used for the manpack equipment for the

HFW, VHFW and WNW were -15 dBi, -15 dBi and 0 dBi respectively. For the Vehicle

mounted equipment, antenna gains of -15 dBi, -6 dBi and 0 dBi were used for the HFW,

VHFW and WNW.

5.3.6 Thermal Noise Power

Apart from Additive White Gaussian Noise encountered in the channel, noise is

generated by thermal agitation of electrons in the electronic components in receivers.

This inherent Noise is called Thermal Noise. The thermal noise power, P, in watts, is

given by P = kTB, where k is Boltzmann's constant in joules per kelvin, T is the

conductor temperature in kelvin, and B is the bandwidth in Hertz. Thermal noise power,

per Hertz, is equal throughout the frequency spectrum, depending only on k and T .

5.3.7 Noise Figure

Noise Figure is a parameter that specifies the performance of radio receivers. It is

measured in dB. It is a measure of how much a receiver degrades the signal at its input as

compared to its output. It can also be described as the decibel difference in the noise

output of an actual receiver to the noise output of an ideal receiver (one which introduces

55
no thermal noise) under the same gain, bandwidth, and noise temperature conditions. A

Noise Figure of 6 dB was assumed for the receiver to perform the Link Budget Analyses.

5.3.8 Link Margin

To provide for the contingencies like fading, increase the thermal noise generated by

the receiver (due to its operation under harsh temperature conditions), a link margin is

necessary for the Link Budget. The amount of Link margin to be provided for depends on

the level of degradation that is expected. The LBAs in this thesis provide a link margin of

0.5 dB for all the cases considered. The equation that define the Link margin is given as:

Link margin (dB) = Receiver Sensitivity – Power Left at the Receiver Input (5.1)

where,

(1) Receiver sensitivity = kTB + Noise Figure + SNR (dBm) (5.2)

kTB = kT + 10 log10 B (dB) (5.3)

Thermal Noise Density: kT = −174 (dB/Hz)

Boltzmann's constant: k = 1.38 × 10 −20 (dBm/K)

Receiver system noise temperature: T (Kelvin).

Detection Bandwidth: B (Hertz).

Noise Figure: NF (dB)

(2) Power Left at the Receiver Input (dBm) = Tx − Pbo − Atx + Gtx − L − Arx + Grx − Limp

56
where Tx is the transmitter power, Pbo is the power back-off, Atx is the transmitter

feedline loss, Gtx is the transmitter antenna gain, L is the Path loss, Arx is the

receiver feedline loss, Grx is the receiver antenna gain, and Limp is the implementation

loss.

5.4 Sample Link Budget Analysis

To show how all the parameters work together in performing a Link Budget Analysis,

A sample LBA is shown here. The LBA has been divided into three segments which

shows the three different stages of the radio system: Transmitter, Channel and Receiver.

The transmitter part shows the transmitter parameters and the values used at different data

rates. The channel part shows the link length that is possible under the specified channel

conditions – the path loss, and the operating frequency. The receiver part shows the effect

of the detection bandwidth and the thermal noise power generated by it. This sample LBA

shows the result of LBA performed for a 5 W WNW radio equipment operating in a

GTG-Open propagation environment.

57
A. TRANSMITTER

Data Rates

Description Quantity Unit 120kbps 240kbps 480kbps 960kbps 1.92Mbps 2.5Mbps

Transmitter Power Tx dBm 37.00 37.00 37.00 37.00 37.00 37.00

Power Back-off Pbo dBm 0.00 5.50 5.50 5.50 5.50 5.50

Transmitter Antenna Gain Gtx dB 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Transmitter Feedline Loss Atx dB 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Transmitter Antenna Height hb m 1.70 1.70 1.70 1.70 1.70 1.70

B. CHANNEL

Link Length R Km 3.41 2.69 2.30 1.76 1.42 0.98

Frequency fc MHz 250.00 250.00 250.00 250.00 250.00 250.00

Path Loss (Hata, Open Area) L dB 127.39 122.92 119.97 114.92 110.92 103.97

C. RECEIVER

Receiver Antenna Gain Grx dB 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Receiver Feedline Loss Arx dB 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Receiver Antenna Height hm m 1.70 1.70 1.70 1.70 1.70 1.70

Thermal Noise Density kT dBm/Hz -174.00 -174.00 -174.00 -174.00 -174.00 -174.00

Detection Bandwidth B kHz 4000.00 4000.00 4000.00 4000.00 4000.00 4000.00

Thermal Noise Power across B kTB dBm -107.98 -107.98 -107.98 -107.98 -107.98 -107.98

Noise Figure NF dB 8.00 6.00 6.00 6.00 6.00 6.00

Implementation Loss L(imp) dB 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

-5
Required S/N Ratio@BER 10 Eb/No dB 9.00 10.00 13.00 18.00 22.00 29.00

Power Left at Receiver Input PWR rx dBm -90.39 -91.42 -88.47 -83.42 -79.42 -72.47

Receiver Sensitivity PWR sen dBm -90.98 -91.98 -88.98 -83.98 -79.98 -72.98

Link Budget Margin Margin dB 0.59 0.56 0.51 0.56 0.56 0.51

Figure 5.1 Sample Link Budget Analysis

5.4.1 Sample LBA calculation for GTG-O

To show the LBA calculations, the link parameters shown in Table 5.1 were subsumed

under two main categories: Losses and Gains. This section shows how we arrived at the

58
link margin shown in figure 5.1 for the 960 kbps data rate, in the GTG-O case. The link

margin has been obtained by taking the difference between the gains and the losses in the

communication link. The details are shown below:

A. Gains

1. Transmitter Power = 37 dBm, 2. Transmitter Antenna Gain = 0 dBi, 3.

Receiver Antenna Gain = 0 dBi. This makes the sum of all the gain in the

system to be 37 dB.

B. Path Loss

1. Transmitter Antenna Height = 1.7 m, 2. Receiver Antenna Height = 1.7 m,

3. Link Length = 1.76 km, 4. Frequency = 500 MHz

Considering the Hata open area path loss which uses the formula:

LP (dB ) = 69.55 + 26.16 log10 f c − 13.82 log10 hb − a (hm ) + (44.9 − 6.55 log10 hb ) log10 R

where a (hm ) = (1.1log10 f c − 0.7)hm − (1.56 log10 f c − 0.8) ,

The path loss calculated by substituting all the four parameters is 114.92 dB.

C. Other Loses

1. Power Back-off = 5.5 dB, 2. Transmitter Feedline Loss = 0 dB,

3.Receiver Feedline Loss = 0 dB, 4. Implement Loss = 0 dB.

The sum of the other losses is 5.5 dB.

59
D. Thermal Noise Power

1. Thermal Noise Density (kT)= -174 dBm/Hz ,

2. Detection Bandwidth = 4 MHz.

The thermal noise power across 4 MHz (4,000,000 Hz) becomes

kTB = −174 + 10 log10 (4,000,000) (dB)

= -174 +66.02 = - 107.98 dB

E. Noise Figure (NF) = 6 dB

We have assumed a receiver of 6 dB noise figure.

F. Required S/N = 18 dB

G. Power Left at Receiver Input = A - B – C

= 37 – 114.92 – 5.5 = - 83.42

H. Receiver Sensitivity = D + E + F

= -107.98+6+18 = - 83.98 dB

Then, Overall Link Margin = G–H

= -83.42 – (- 83.98) = 0.56 dB

For the GTG-M, GTS and other cases, the same procedure applies. The only difference

will be parameter B – which is the path loss estimation.

60
Chapter 6

Discussion of Results

This Chapter discusses the results obtained by performing LBA for the three

waveforms under five propagation environments: GTG-O, GTG-M, GTG-U, STG/GTS

and STS. Tables 6.1 through 6.3 summarizes the range estimated for all the waveforms.

The results are shown for Tx power of 20 W and 100 W for the HFW, and 5 W and 50 W

for both the VHFW and the WNW.

The maximum and minimum propagation range shown in Tables 6.1 through 6.3 are

for the minimum and maximum data rates respectively. The lowest data rates gave the

maximum range shown while the highest data rates gave the minimum range shown.

Table 6.1 Estimated range for all the HFW cases

HFW 27 MHz Detection Bandwidth, B = 3 kHz
Tx Power (20 W) (100 W)

Range(km) Max Min Max Min

GTG-O 20.0 7.0 36.5 13.5

GTG-M 11.8 4.76 32.0 10.8

GTG-U 4.92 2.14 11.29 4.44

STG/GTS 68.0 25.0 94.6 42.5

STS 158 95 180 115

61
 Table 6.2 Estimated range for the VHFW cases
VHFW 60 MHz Detection Bandwidth, B = 25 kHz
Tx Power (5 W) (50 W)

Mode Fixed Hopping Fixed Hopping

Range(km) Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min

GTG-O 2.82 0.82 2.75 0.75 23.4 6.80 25.5 6.22

GTG-M 0.20 0.04 0.19 0.03 3.37 0.64 3.24 0.58

GTG-U 1.73 0.50 1.68 0.46 14.3 4.15 13.9 3.8

STG/GTS 12.0 3.5 11.9 3.00 45.5 17.5 45.0 16.0

STS 26.5 9.50 26.0 9.00 80.0 35.0 78.5 33.0

Table 6.3 Estimated range for the WNW cases

WNW 500 MHz Detection Bandwidth, B = 4 MHz

Tx Power (5 W) (50 W)

Mode Long Frame Short Frame Long Frame Short Frame

Range(km) Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min

GTG-O 2.49 0.72 1.91 1.22 6.00 1.66 4.57 2.87

GTG-M 0.12 0.02 0.08 0.05 0.33 0.06 0.23 0.12

GTG-U 0.62 0.18 0.47 0.30 1.38 0.38 1.05 0.65

STG/GTS/STS 1.70 0.40 1.20 0.70 4.50 1.10 3.40 2.00

6.1 HFW Propagation Range

This section discusses the propagation range of the HFW under different propagation

environment. They are the GTG-O, GTG-M, GTG-U, STG/GTS, and STS. Table 6.1

serves as reference for the HFW and the propagation environments.

6.1.1 HFW GTG-O

The GRWAVE program was used to model for estimating path loss for the case of

HFW GTG-O. The five different data rates used are of 75 bps, 150 bps, 300 bps, 600 bps,

62
1.2 kbps, 2.4 kbps for lower data rate assessment. The transmitter and receiver antenna

gains used for the LBA is -15 dBi. The link margin between 0.5 and 1 dB targeted in the

LBA to estimate the transmission range and the results are shown below in Table 6.4.

Table 6.4 Summary of LBA for HFW GTG-O case.

Distance (km)

Manpack (20 W) Vehicle (100 W)

Maximum Minimum Maximum Minimum
20.0 7.0 36.5 13.5

As can be seen from the Table, the Manpack equipment with Tx power 20 W can achieve

link distance from 7 km to 20 km, while the vehicle with Tx power 100 W can achieve link

distance from 13.5 km to 36.5 km. For better transmission range, it is recommended that

high gain antennas be used.

6.1.2 HFW GTG-M

This is the last case of the HFW GTG cases. The data rates used herein were

comprised of 75 bps, 150 bps, 300 bps, 600 bps, 1.2 kbps, and 2.4 kbps for LBA. Just like

GTG-U case, it also uses Lichun model to estimate the path loss in the mountain

blockage scenario. The Lichun model (as used in this case) assumes a single obstruction

in the propagation path between transmitter and receiver. The use of Lichun model for

this case neglects the sight loss (Ls) and the environment loss (Le) because they do not

63
contribute to the path loss in the case. The propagation distances that resulted from the

LBA are shown in Table 6.5.

Table 6.5 Summary of LBA for HFW GTG-M case.

Distance (km)
Manpack (20 W) Vehicle (100 W)
Maximum Minimum Maximum Minimum
11.8 4.76 32.0 10.8

It can be observed from the Table that the Manpack equipment with Tx power 20 W can

achieve link distance from 4.76 km to 11.8 km, while the vehicle with Tx power 100 W can

achieve link distance from 10.8 km to 32.0 km. Comparing the results of case GTG-O and

GTG-U, it is observed that the mountain blockage case produced a better range of coverage

than the urban case. This is because propagation in an urban area is attenuated more than

the mountain blockage case due to the presence of many buildings in the urban area case.

6.1.3 HFW GTG-U

This is a case for HF propagation in urban areas. Lichun Model was used to

model the path loss in this case. This model is based on empirical data collected in urban

areas of China. The path loss generated by Lichun model is made up of the sums all the

losses encountered in propagating a radio signal from transmitter to receiver and the gain

produced by the height of the Tx and Rx antennas above ground. The losses are: Free

Space Loss, Ground loss, Propagation Distance loss, Building loss, Sight loss,

64
Environment loss. The antenna gain factor is called the new height gain factor. The LBA

has been done based on link margin of 0.5 – 1 dB. The propagation distances that resulted

from the LBA are shown in Table 6.6.

Table 6.6 Summary of LBA for HFW GTG-U case.

Distance (km)
Manpack (20 W) Vehicle (100 W)
Maximum Minimum Maximum Minimum
4.92 2.14 11.29 4.44

It is observed from the Table that the Manpack equipment with Tx power 20 W can

achieve link distance from 2.14 km to 4.92 km, while the vehicle with Tx power 100 W can

achieve link distance from 4.44 km to 11.29 km.

6.1.4 HFW GTS/STG

The LBA for HFW GTS used the MGPP program which is ideal for estimating

path loss in the HFW ground to ship and ship to ground cases. These cases are called the

mixed mode cases because they include propagation over land and sea. The data rates used

herein were comprised of 75 bps, 150 bps, 300 bps, 600 bps, 1.2 kbps and 2.4 kbps for LBA.

In this scenario, the ground length d1 was fixed to 10 km for both 20 W and 100 W Tx

Power. This is to allow for variations in the contribution by both sea length and the Link

length R. The rationale behind this is to see how far propagation from a transmitter placed

65
10 km from the shore can reach in to the sea (or how far into the sea a transmitter can be

placed for its propagation to reach a receiver placed on land at 10 km from the shore). This

means the signal is compulsorily propagated over 10 km of ground length and then

remaining signal strength is completely attenuated by the variable sea length. The results

generated are shown below in Table 6.7.

Table 6.7 Summary of LBA for HFW GTS/STG case

Distance (km)
(20 W) (100 W)
Maximum Minimum Maximum Minimum
68.0 25.0 94.6 42.5

With respect to STG, a similar analytical methodology to GTS was followed. The results

for STG are exactly the same as GTS. The transmitter is placed on the ship and the receiver

on land. This equates to viewing the link from the other end, which is the reverse of GTS.

6.1.5 HFW STS

In the case of HFW (STS), the GRWAVE program is used to estimate the pass loss.

This is very similar to the HFW (GTG), being a single mode propagation, i.e. all

propagation takes place over the sea. The link margin between 0.5 and 1 dB targeted in the

LBA to estimate the transmission range and the data rates used herein were comprised of

75 bps, 150 bps, 300 bps, 600 bps, 1.2 kbps, and 2.4 kbps for LBA. Table 6.8 illustrates the

66
summarized results for optimized link distance.

Table 6.8 Summary of LBA for HFW STS case

Distance (km)
(20 W) (100 W)
Maximum Minimum Maximum Minimum
158 95 180 115

In summary, the HFW cases show that the maximum range is delivered in the STS

propagation case, followed by the STG and the GTS cases. The shortest range was

observed in all the Ground to Ground cases with GTG-O having the maximum range.

This is followed by the GTG-M, while the GTG-U has the shortest range.

6.2 VHFW Propagation Range

This section of the chapter discusses the propagation range of the VHFW under different

propagation environment. They are the GTG-O, GTG-M, GTG-U STG/GTS and STS.

6.2.1 VHFW GTG-O

The LBA for VHFW GTG-O has been conducted using the plane earth path loss model.

The link margin that was targeted for the LBA was between 0.5 and 1 dB. The data rates

used herein were comprised of 9 kbps, 18 kbps, 36 kbps, 45 kbps, and 60 kbps for fixed

mode operation and 6 kbps, 12 kbps, 24 kbps, 30 kbps, and 40 kbps for hopping mode

operation. The antenna gains of -15 dBi and -6 dBi were used for both the Manpack and

67
Vehicle mounted equipment. Table 6.9 summarizes the LBA results. It was noted that there

is negligible difference in the distance ranges calculated between fixed and hopped modes

of operation for both Manpack and Vehicle mounted equipment.

Table 6.9 Summary of LBA for VHFW GTG-O case.

Distance (km)
Mode Manpack (5 W) Vehicle (50 W)
Maximum Minimum Maximum Minimum
Fixed 2.82 0.82 23.40 6.80
Hopping 2.75 0.75 25.50 6.22

6.2.2 VHFW GTG-M

The LBA for the VHFW GTG-M case has been conducted using the recommended

Egli model combined with ITU-R diffraction loss model. The combination is necessary so

as to account for diffraction losses. This approach was used in [21]. ITU-R model estimates

the loss due to the diffraction produced by the obstacle, while Egli model accounts for the

path loss between the transmitter and receiver. The link margin that was targeted for the

LBA was between 0.5 and 1 dB. Antenna gains of -15 dBi and -6 dBi were used for

Manpack and Vehicle mounted equipment respectively. The data rates used herein were

comprised of 9 kbps, 18 kbps, 36 kbps, 45 kbps, and 60 kbps for fixed mode operation and

6 kbps, 12 kbps, 24 kbps, 30 kbps, and 40 kbps for hopping mode operation. Also,

68
mountain heights 500 m were considered. Moreover, it was assumed that the mountain

blockage was centered between the transmitter and receiver. The summarized results are

presented in Table 6.10.

It can be observed that the Manpack range of coverage is very limited as compared

to the Vehicle equipment cases. This is not only due to the lower Tx power of the Manpack

equipment but also due to the very low antenna gain of -15 dBi used. For a substantial

improvement in the range, high gain antennas could be used for the Manpack equipment to

enhance better range coverage in the Mountain blockage cases.

Table 6.10 Summary of LBA for VHFW GTG-M case.

Distance (km)
Mode Manpack (5 W) Vehicle (50 W)
Maximum Minimum Maximum Minimum
Fixed 0.20 0.02 3.37 3.24
Hopping 0.19 0.03 0.64 0.58

6.2.3 VHFW GTG-U

Egli model was used for the LBA for VHFW GTG-U. The data rates used herein

were comprised of 9 kbps, 18 kbps, 36 kbps, 45 kbps, and 60 kbps for fixed mode operation

and 6 kbps, 12 kbps, 24 kbps, 30 kbps, and 40 kbps for hopping mode operation. Antenna

gains of -15 dBi and -6 dBi were used for Manpack and Vehicle mounted equipment

respectively. The results of the LBA have been outlined in Table 6.11.

Summarizing the results of VHFW GTG cases, it is observed that the best range

69
coverage was obtained in the GTG-O case, followed by the GTG-U case and the Mountain

blockage case. This hierarchy is a deviation from what was observed in the HFW GTG

cases. It is presumed that the use of the Plane Earth model for path loss estimation in the

VHFW Open terrain and Mountain blockage cases is the cause of this difference.

Table 6.11 Summary of LBA for VHFW GTG-U case.

Distance (km)
Mode Manpack (5 W) Vehicle (50 W)
Maximum Minimum Maximum Minimum
Fixed 1.73 0.50 14.30 4.15
Hopping 1.68 0.46 13.90 3.80

6.2.4 VHFW GTS/STG

The LBAs for VHFW GTS and STG cases have been calculated using the MGPP

model. Antenna gains of -15 dBi and -6 dBi were used for Manpack and Vehicle mounted

equipment respectively. The data rates used herein were comprised of 9 kbps, 18 kbps, 36

kbps, 45 kbps, and 60 kbps for fixed mode operation and 6 kbps, 12 kbps, 24 kbps, 30 kbps,

and 40 kbps for hopping mode operation. The ground length d1 was fixed to 1 km for both

5 W and 50 W Tx Power. This is to allow for variations in the contribution by both sea

length and the Link length R. The 1 km ground length was chosen (as compared to 10 km

ground length in HF cases) because VHF frequencies are attenuated more rapidly than HF

frequencies, and therefore would only propagate over a relatively short range for reliable

70
communication to take place. The rationale behind this is to see how far propagation from a

transmitter placed 1 km from the shore can reach in to the sea (or how far into the sea a

transmitter can be placed for its propagation to reach the receiver placed on land at 1 km

from the shore). This means the signal is compulsorily propagated over 1 km of ground

length and then remaining signal strength is completely attenuated by the variable sea

length. The results are shown below in Table 6.12.

Table 6.12 Summary of LBA for VHFW GTS/STG case

Distance (km)
Mode Tx Power (5 W) Tx Power (50 W)
Maximum Minimum Maximum Minimum
Fixed 12.00 3.50 45.50 17.50
Hopping 12.00 3.00 45.00 16.00

6.2.5 VHFW STS

The LBA for the VHFW STS case has been calculated using the MGPP model

which is ideal for STS communications at this frequency band. The GRWAVE model that

was used for the HFW is limited to 30 MHz - which makes it unsuitable for the VHFW.

The data rates used herein were comprised of 9 kbps, 18 kbps, 36 kbps, 45 kbps, and 60

kbps for fixed mode operation and 6 kbps, 12 kbps, 24 kbps, 30 kbps, and 40 kbps for

hopping mode operation. The results of the LBA have been outlined in Table 6.13. For 5

W of transmission power, a link range of 9.0 – 26.5 km can be achieved (depending on

71
operating mode). For 50 W of transmission power, the link range can be increased to a

range of 33 – 80 km.

Table 6.13 Summary of the LBA results for VHFW STS case.
Distance (km)
Mode Tx Power (5 W) Tx Power (50 W)
Maximum Minimum Maximum Minimum
Fixed 26.50 9.50 80.00 35.00
Hopping 26.00 9.00 78.50 33.00

In summary, the VHFW cases show that the maximum range is observed in the

STG and the GTS cases because some of the propagation is over the sea, which has better

conductivity compared to ground. In the GTG cases, the GTG-O has the maximum range,

and this was followed by the GTG-U, while the GTG-M case has the shortest range. The

range of the GTG-M being longer than the GTG-U in the VHFW cases is the opposite of

what was observed in the HFW case. This is presumed to be due to the use of the Plane

earth model for the Path loss estimation in the VHFW mountain blockage case.

6.3 WNW Propagation Range

This section discusses the propagation range of the WNW under different propagation

environment. They are the GTG-O, GTG-M, GTG-U, STG/GTS, and STS.

72
6.3.1 WNW GTG-O
This case of WNW operates on a Tx frequency of 500 MHz. The receiver

detection bandwidth of 4 MHz was assumed in the LBA for this case to reflect the

relatively larger bandwidth that might be needed for multimedia data. LBA for WNW

GTG-O has been performed using Hata Model for Open areas. For the LBA, a link

margin between 0.5 to 1 dB was targeted. The data rates used are: 120 kbps, 240 kbps,

480 kbps, 960 kbps, 1920 kbps, 2500 kbps for long frame and 240 kbps, 480 kbps for

short frame. The size of the frame signifies the quota of the frame assigned to data

carrying symbols relative to preamble symbol overhead. The long frame consists of 10

OFDM symbols in which 2 are preamble symbols and 8 are data symbols. The short

frame mode is comprised of 5 OFDM symbols with 2 preamble symbols and 3 data

symbols. Antenna gains of 0 dBi was used for both Manpack and vehicle mounted

equipment. Tx and Rx heights of 1.7 m and Tx power of 5 W were assumed for Manpack

equipment, while Tx and Rx heights of 2.8 m and Tx power of 50 W were assumed for

vehicle mounted equipment. The results of the LBA are shown in Table 6.14 below.

Table 6.14 Summary of the LBA for WNW-GTG-O

Distance (km)
Mode Manpack (5 W) Vehicle (50 W)
Maximum Minimum Maximum Minimum
Long Frame 2.49 0.72 6.00 1.66
Short Frame 1.91 1.22 4.57 2.87

73
It can be seen from the Table that the range of transmission for Manpack equipment is

from 0.72 km to 2.49 km. This range is increased to 1.66 km and 6.00 km for Vehicle

mounted equipment.

6.3.2 WNW GTG-M

The LBA for WNW GTG-M, has been conducted using the recommended Hata

Model combined with ITU-R Model (for diffraction loss). Also, the link margin target for

the LBA was between 0.5 to 1 dB. The data rates used herein were comprised of 120 kbps,

240 kbps, 480 kbps, 960 kbps, 1920 kbps, 2500 kbps for long frame and 240 kbps, 480

kbps for short frame. Table 6.15 summarizes the LBA results. Antenna gains 0 dBi was

used for both Tx and Rx for Manpack and for Vehicle equipment. The range can be

improved significantly if high gain antennas are used for the link budget calculations.

Note also that the 500 m mountain blockage was centered between transmitter and

receiver. With this blockage, the range for Manpack spans from 0.02 km - 0.12 km. For

Vehicle equipment a link range of 0.06 km - 0.33 km was achieved. The ranges described

are given across both short and long frame transmission modes.

Table 6.15 Summary of the LBA results for WNW-GTG-M

Distance (km)
Mode Manpack (5 W) Vehicle (50 W)
Maximum Minimum Maximum Minimum
Long Frame 0.12 0.02 0.33 0.06
Short Frame 0.08 0.05 0.23 0.12

74
6.3.3 WNW GTG-U
This is the urban case of the WNW ground to ground propagation cases. The Tx

frequency used for the LBA is 500 MHz. The receiver detection bandwidth of 4 MHz was

also assumed. LBA for WNW GTG-U has been performed using Hata Model for urban

areas. The link margin target for the LBA was between 0.5 to 1. The data rates used

herein were comprised of 120 kbps, 240 kbps, 480 kbps, 960 kbps, 1920 kbps, 2500 kbps

for long frame and 240 kbps, 480 kbps for short frame. Antenna gains of 0 dBi was used

for both Manpack and vehicle mounted equipment. Tx and Rx heights of 1.7 m and Tx

power of 5 W were assumed for Manpack equipment, while Tx and Rx heights of 2.8 m

and Tx power of 50 W were assumed for vehicle mounted equipment. The results of the

LBA are shown in Table 6.16 below.

Table 6.16 Summary of the LBA results for WNW GTG-U

Distance (km)
Mode Manpack (5 W) Vehicle (50 W)
Maximum Minimum Maximum Minimum
Long Frame 0.62 0.18 1.38 0.38
Short Frame 0.47 0.30 1.05 0.65

The results of Table 6.16 shows that the link range for Manpack spans 0.18 km – 0.62 km

while Vehicle equipment propagation range is between 0.38 km - 1.38 km. The ranges

described are given across both short and long frame transmission modes.

75
6.3.4 WNW GTS/STG/STS

Due to the propagation characteristics of the UHF band of the WNW, The ground

length which was present in the mixed mode cases (GTS and STG) of the HFW and

VHFW was removed for the WNW cases. This is because propagated radio waves get

attenuated faster over ground paths at UHF frequencies that VHF or HF frequencies. The

LBA of the WNW cases was performed based on the assumption that the transmitter in

the case of the GTS (or receiver in the case of the STG) is placed at the shore which is the

boundary between land and sea. This means that all the propagation takes place over the

sea and no ground path is included. The LBA results obtained were based on the antenna

gain of 0 dBi for both Tx and Rx, Tx operating frequency of 500 MHz, receiver detection

bandwidth of 4 MHz and Tx power of 5 W and 50 W. The data rates used herein were

comprised of 120 kbps, 240 kbps, 480 kbps, 960 kbps, 1920 kbps, 2500 kbps for long

frame and 240 kbps, 480 kbps for short frame. The link margin target for the LBA was

between 0.5 to 1 dB. The results of the LBA for these three cases are shown in Table 6.17

below.

Table 6.17 Summary of the LBA results for WNW GTS/STG/STS

Distance (km)
Optimization Mode (5 W) (50 W)
for Maximum Minimum Maximum Minimum
Link Margin Long Frame 1.70 0.40 4.50 1.10
Short Frame 1.40 0.70 3.40 2.00

76
6.4 Propagation Range with design parameter Variation

Propagation environment, center frequency, transmitter power, antenna height,

antenna gain are major parameters that need to be taken into consideration for the

estimation of propagation range for each of the waveforms. Due to the multivariate nature,

while some parameters are being varied, the remaining parameters had to be held

constant. Since propagation range and data rates are the most important variables of

interest, a series of graphs have been produced as a function of these two parameters,

while varying some parameters. As expected, for the three different waveforms, results

show that the propagation range reduces as data rate is increased. The parameters that

have been varied and plotted in the graphs are: Propagation environment, center

frequency, transmitter power and antenna height.

6.4.1 Range Based on Propagation Environment& Data Rate

The five cases have been shown for each of the waveforms - GTG-O, GTG-M,

GTG-U, STS and GTS (STG) – to show the effect of varying propagation environment

and data rates on propagation range. The graph for the HFW waveform has been plotted

for transmit power of 100 W. This is shown in Figure 6.1. The VHFW waveform graph

was plotted for manpack equipment (Tx power of 5 W) operating in fixed mode which is

represented by the ‘F’ shown in front of the cases in Figure 6.2. Also the WNW graph

77
was plotted for manpack equipment which operates in the long frame mode. This is

depicted by ‘L’ that is shown in Figure 6.3. At any data rate, for all the HFW and VHFW

waveforms, the STS case produced the longest range. This is due to the excellent sea

conductivity as compared to ground. This was followed by GTS case. The deviation from

this ideal is observed in the WNW case due to the high frequency on which it operates

which consequentially makes the MGPP propagation model to break down.

Figure 6.1 Range vs Data rate for HFW cases

Figure 6.2 Range vs Data rate for VHFW Cases

78
 Figure 6.3 Range vs Data rate for WNW Cases

6.4.2 Range Based on Center Frequency

To see the effect of change of transmitter center frequency on the WNW propagation

range as in, the graph of range vs. data rate at four different centre frequencies were

plotted. These are shown in Figure 6.4. The frequencies are – 250, 350, 500 and 1,300

MHz. The WNW GTG-U case with transmitter power fixed at 50 W is used here as a case

study. Also, the average range increase at the 6 data rates has been used. It can be

observed form the graph that when the centre frequency is reduced from 1300 MHz to

500 MHz, the propagation range improves by a factor of about 1.8 (the average of the

range increase at the 6 different data rates). A range increase by a factor of about 1.25 is

further noticed when the 500 MHz center frequency is reduced to 350 MHz. As the

frequency is reduced to 250 MHz, the corresponding range is increased by a factor of

about 1.23. This corresponds to an overall range increase by a factor of about 2.3 when

79
center frequency is reduced from 1300 to 250 MHz. Considering the 500 MHz center

frequency used for this work, the range can be improved by a factor of about 1.5 if the

center frequency is changed to 250 MHz.

Figure 6.4 Range vs Data rate for WNW GTG-U

at different frequncies.

6.4.3 Range Based on Transmitter Power

As in the case of center frequency parameter, the WNW GTG-U case has been used to the

see the effect of varying transmitter power on propagation range. Here, shown in Figure

6.5, center frequency and antenna height are fixed to 500 MHz and 2.8 m respectively.

When the power is increased from 5 W to 50 W, the range is increased by a factor of

about 1.96.

80
 Figure 6.5 Range vs Data rate for WNW GTG-U
for different Tx powers.

As the power is doubled from 50 W to 100 W, the propagation range correspondingly

increases by a factor of about 1.18. A factor of 1.1 range increase is observed when Tx

power is increased from 100 W to 150 W. The overall range increase from 5 W to 150 W

is a factor 2.24. This shows that the transmitter power variation produces the same overall

result in range increase as in the variation of center frequency.

6.4.4 Range Based on Antenna Height

Figure 6.6 shows the effect of varying antenna height on the range of propagation for the

WNW GTG-U. Four different antenna heights have been used. These are – 1.7 m, 2.7 m,

2.8 m and 4 m. Tx power of 5 W was used for the 1.7 and 2.7 m curves – being manpack

equipment, while the 2.8 and 4 m curves – being vehicle mounted equipment – were

81
plotted using Tx power of 50 W. It can be observed from the graph that as the antenna

height is increased from 1.7 m to 2.7 m, the propagation range improves by a factor of

about 1.1. The same range increase factor - about 1.1 - is also observed when the antenna

height of 2.8 is increased to 4 m.

Figure 6.6. Range vs Data rate for WNW GTG-U

for different antenna heights.

82
Chapter 7

Conclusion and Future Work

The performance of three disparate waveforms (HFW, VHFW and the WNW) which

are of interest to tactical communications have been discussed under different

propagation environment. Several propagation models were used in the estimation of

Path loss that are typical of these environment and the propagation range for these

waveforms under these conditions have been suggested. The propagation range for these

waveforms were estimated for two equipment types: Manpack and Vehicle mounted

equipment. The extent to which the range changed when equipment design parameters

were varied was also discussed. The five design parameters considered were: Transmitter

power, center frequency, antenna gain, antenna height and data rate. Each of the three

waveforms has its own advantages and drawbacks. While the HFW is the choice

waveform for BLOS communications - notwithstanding its inherent problem of low data

rates, the demand for high data rate and networking capabilities makes the WNW

extremely attractive for use in where these goals need to be met.

83
7.1 Conclusion

The conclusions arrived at from the results are summarized as below:

1) The design parameter that yielded the greatest improvement in propagation range was

identified. The reduction in the center operating frequency gave the best result in a

increasing propagation range. The increase in antenna height produced the least result

in range improvement.

2) In performing the LBA, it was noticed that the ambient temperature of the receiver

can adversely affect its sensitivity which consequentially affects range due to the

increase in thermal noise power across the detection bandwidth.

3) The HFW produced the longest range of all the three waveforms. This was followed

by the VHFW. The propagation range of the WNW was shortest; albeit it provided the

highest data rate.

4) Since there are practical limits to which most of the design factors like transmitter

power, antenna gain, antenna heights can be exploited, use of channel coding surely

can improve the performance of the waveforms and enhanced propagation range.

7.2 Future Work

The following areas offer further research based on the outcome of this thesis.

1) Other code rates for the convolution codes used could be investigated for all the

84
 waveforms to see whether the bit error rate and range improve.

2) More waveforms of interest to tactical communications could be investigated.

3) Low Density Parity Check codes could be used for the WNW instead of

convolution codes. Recent findings have shown that LDPC performs better with

OFDM waveform due to its low error floor and performance at high code rates.

4) Since most modern radio equipment technology (like the IEEE 802.11n) gravitate

towards MIMO that takes advantage of space diversity to improve range and data

rate, work should be done on using multiple antennas for these equipment. The

fading channel also need to be modeled as a Nakagami-m channel since it

characterizes fading in the MIMO context.

85
References

[1] JTRS Joint Program Office, JTRS Wideband Networking Waveform (WNW)
Functional Description Document (FDD) Version 2.21, November 2001.

[2] North, R., “Joint Tactical Radio System – Connecting the GIG to the Tactical Edge”,
proceedings of MILCOM 2006, Washington DC, October 2006.

[3] Chryssomallis, M., and Chrlstodoulou, C., “Simulation of Mobile Fading Channels”,
IEEE Antennas and Propagation Magazine, Vol. 44, No. 6, December 2002, pp. 172–
183.

[4] Van Nee, R. and Prasad, R., “OFDM for Wireless Multimedia Communications”,
Artech House Publishers, 2000.

[5] Kabulepa, L.D., “OFDM Basics for wireless communications”, Institute of

Microelectronics system, Darmstadt University of Tech, 2004.

[6] Kim, J., Oguntade, A., Oza M., and Kim, S., “Range Estimation for Tactical Radio
Waveforms Using Link Budget Analysis”, proceedings of IEEE Milcom Conference,
Boston, MA, October 2009.

[7] Hata, M., “Empirical Formulae for Propagation Loss in Land Mobile Radio Services,”
IEEE Trans.Vehic. Tech., vol. VT-29, no. 3, 1980, pp. 317–325.

[8] Egli, John J. "Radio Propagation Above 40 MC Over Irregular Terrain." Proceedings
of the IRE 45, no. 10 (1957): pp 1383-1391.
[9] International Telecommunication Union website: www.itu.int.

[10] Barclay, L., Propagation of Radiowaves, 2nd ed., London: The Institution of
Electrical Engineers, 2003.

[11] Millington, G., "Groundwave Propagation over an Inhomogeneous Smooth Earth",

IEE Proceedings, 96 Part III, p.53, Mar 1949.

[12] Sevgi, L., "A Mixed-Path Groundwave Field Strength Prediction Virtual Tool for
Digital Radio Broadcast Systems in Medium and Short Wave Bands", IEEE
Antennas and Propagation Magazine, Vol. 48, No.5, Oct 2006.

86
[13] Sevgi, L., Complex Electromagnetic Problems and Numerical Simulation
Approaches, Wiley-IEEE, 2003.

[14] Luo Lichun, “A new MF and HF Ground-wave Model for Urban Areas”, IEEE
Antennas and Propagation Magazine, Vol. 42, No 1, February 2000, pp. 21-33.
[15] Hall, M.P.M., Effects of the troposphere on Radio Communication, Peter
Pergrinus, 1979.

[16] Fabio Belloni, “Fading models” S-88 Signal Processing Laboratory, HUT.
[17] Karagiannidis G, N-Nakagami “A Novel Stochastic Model for Cascaded Fading
Channels”, IEEE Transactions on Communications, vol. 55, No 8, August 2007, pp.
1453–1458.

[18] Crepeau, P.J.: ‘Uncoded and coded performance of MFSK and DPSK in Nakagami
fading channels’, IEEE Transactions on Communications, March 1992, Vol 40, pp.
487–493.

[19] MIL-STD-188-110B specifications.

[20] Junghwan Kim, Mike Orra, Chong Wang, Ayoade Oguntade, Oza Maulik, and
Pooja Raorane, “Final Report of Link Budget Analysis for the Radio System”,
Submitted to LIGNEX1 Co., Ltd, 2008.

[21] Rao, T. R., and Vijaya, S., “Single Knife edge diffraction propagation studies
over a hilly terrain”, IEEE Transactions on Broadcasting, vol. 45, no.1, March
1999, pp. 20-29.

87