..

M

NTIA-Report-81-69

The Role of Elevated

Ducting for Radio Service

and Interference Fields

H.T. Dougherty

E.J. Dutton

u.s. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

Malcolm Baldrige, Secretary

Dale N. Hatfield, Acting Assistant Secretary

for Communications and Information

March 1981

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ABSTRACT Page

l. INTRODUCTION

1.1 Degradation of Service Fields 2 " .

" 1.2 Enhancement of Interference Fields 2

2. DUCTING STRUCTURES 8 ~: <

2.1 Ducting 9

2.2 Duct Width 11

2.3 Duct Definition 11

2.4 Duct Frequency Dependence 13

2.5 Propagation Losses For Ducts 13

3. LAYER AND DUCT CHARACTERISTICS 15

3. 1 Occurrence of Surface Ducts 15

3.2 Occurrence of Elevated Ducts 16

3.3 Elevated Duct Statistics 19

4. ILLUSTRATIVE EXAMPLES 23

4.1 Application To Broadcasting 27

5. RECOMMENDATI ONS 30

6. REFERENCES 32

7. APPENDICES

A: Ducting Expressions

B: Contour Maps For 10 and 90 Percentile Values

C: Schematic Representations of Some Meteorological Conditions

Favorable For Anomalous Radio Propagation

D: List of Symbols

iii

35

38

47

52
LIST OF FIGURES

10. The locations of the 107 historical radiosonde data stations.

14. The median base height of elevated ducts, h

b(50%) in meters

above the surface.

15. The median elevation of the top of elevated ducts, h

a (50%)

in meters above the surface.

5. Elevated layer with a ducting gradient, its refractivity

profile, and two trapped radio wave trajectories.

Page

3

4

5

6

10 .

10

12

17

18

20

21

22

24

25

26 I ...

Elevated and surface duct parameters.

The occurrence of elevated ducts in percent of all

hours of the year.

The occurrence of elevated ducts in percent of all

hours of the worst month.

7.

8.

6. Elevated layer with a ducting gradient, its modified

refractivity profile, and two trapped radio wave trajectories.

2. An atmospheric fading mechanism, Isolation.

3. An atmospheric fading mechanism, Diffraction.

4. Service and interference propagation paths for two systems.

9.

11. The median minimum trapping frequency, ft (50%) in megahertz.

12. The optimum coupling elevation, h

o(50%) in meters above the

surface, expected for 50% of all elevated ducts.

13. The median M-unit lapse across the observed elevated ducts,

IflM(50%) I in M-units.

Figure

1. An atmospheric fading mechanism, Multipath.

B-1.

B-2.

B-3.

An upper bound for the minimum trapping frequency,

ft(lO%) in megahertz.

A lower bound for the minimum trapping frequency,

ft (90%) in megahertz.

An upper bound on the base height of the elevated ducts,

hb(lO%) in meters above the surface.

39

40

41

iv
Figure Page

B-4. A lower bound on the base height of elevated ducts, 42

hb(90%) in meters above the surface.

B-5. An upper bound on the optimum coupling elevation, 43

ho(lO%) in meters above the surface.

B-6. A lower bound on the optimum coupling elevation, 44

- . h

o(90%) in meters above the surface. r

B-7. An upper bound on the elevation at the top of the ducts, 45

ha(lO%) in meters above the surface.

B-8. A lower bound on the elevation at the top of the ducts, 46

ha(90%) in meters above the surface.

LIST OF TABLES

Table

1. Comparison of Broadcast Fields in Decibels Below the

Free-Space Level at Flint, Mich., for 50% of Receiver

Locations 450 to 1000 MHz.

29

LIST OF CHARTS

Chart

1. Surface Superrefractive Layers. 48

2. Surface Subrefractive Layers. 49 .

3. Elevated Superrefractive Layers. 50

4. Elevated Subrefractive Layers. 51

v
I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

" I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I
- . r

, .

THE ROLE OF ELEVATED DUCTING FOR

RADIO SERVICE AND INTERFERENCE FIELDS

H. T. Dougherty and E. J. Dutton*

This report categorizes the manner in which atmospheric stratification can complicate the problems of frequency allocation and radio

regulation by inhibiting service fields and enhancing interference

fields. For the United States and its border regions, preliminary contour

maps are presented for those parameters associated with the atmospheric

layering (ducts) conducive to the propagation of unusually strong UHF

and SHF fields over extremely long distances. The parameters of interest

are: the percent occurrence of elevated ducts, a minimum trapping

frequency, the modified refractivity lapse, the ducting-layer base

height, the duct-base height, and the duct-top height. The role of

these duct parameters in the prediction of potential interference fields

is detailed by engineering formulas and illustrated by numerical examples.

These predictions of duct characteristics from historical (radiosonde)

data are necessarily preliminary because of present inadequacies of

the data sample. Approaches for improving estimates of duct parameters

are described. Appendices detail expressions for duct trajectories and

map the variation of duct characteristics.

Key Words: anomalous propagation; atmospheric ducts, layers, or stratification; ducting; interference fields; ray trajectories; SHF; UHF

1. INTRODUCTI ON

Under the influences of climatological and synoptic weather processes such as

subsidence, advection, or surface heating and radiative cooling, there is a tendency

for the lower atmosphere to stratify. This stratification can take the form of

refractivity layering; i.e., layers in Iwhich contrasting refractivity gradients

occur. Of primary interest here are those layers:

o with strong ducting gradients (dN/dh < -157 N units/km),

o immersed within super refractive air (-157 < dN/dh < -39 N units/km),

or 0 overlying a sub-refractive layer (dN/dh > -39 N units/km);

the Nand h are defined by (2a) and (2b) on page 8. These layers with strong ducting

gradients are commonly on the order of ten meters in vertical extent (but often much

less), and commonly bounded by layers of localized turbulence. These layers can be

horizontally extensive, from tens to hundreds of kilometers in extent, although the

thinest layers may be only kilometers in extent [Dougherty and Hart, 1976;

Hall, 1980].

* The authors are with the U. S. Department of Commerce, National Telecommunications

and Information Administration, Institute for Telecommunication Sciences, Boulder, CO.

80303.
This atmospheric layering in the troposphere is of concern both to system

design engineers and to the national or international radio regulators. Ducting

layers have the effect of trapping or guiding (ducting) radio wave energy in their

vicinity. On short paths and even line-of-sight (LOS) paths, this ducting may introatmospheric multipath or be so efficient as to divert energy away from an intended

receiving terminal, depressing the received field level to far below the median service

field level (fading). Simultaneously, this efficiently diverted radio energy may be

directed well beyond the intended service area to cause an otherwise unexpectedly

strong interference signal to other co-channel systems or services.

1.1 Degradation of Service Fields

On line-of-sight (LOS) systems, or over the LOS portions of trans-horizon sys-

.s (i.e., between each terminal antenri and its horizon), tropospheric layers can

degrade system performance. For example, layers near the surface can:

(a) introduce additional propagation paths (which constitute atmospheric

multipath and produce fading);

(b) effectively isolate one telecommunications terminal from the other

(by di verti ', che radi 0 wave and attenuati ng the recei ved

signa1 1e\ cI ) ;

or (c) diffract the service propagation path, introducing losses (radio holes)

due to the proximity of the radio wave trajectory to media boundaries

(such as the earth's surface or the base and top of tropospherir layers).

Examples of each of these categories are illustrated by, respectively, Figures I, 2,

and 3 [Dougherty, 1968J.

1.2 Enhancement of Interference Fields

For the avoidance of interference as required by radio regulations [ITU, 1976;

NTIA, 1979J, the terminals of co-channel systems are normally positioned to avoid an

efficient inter-system (interference) propagation path. For the usual trans-horizon

potential interference path that then results, the available modes of propagation are

volume scattering (troposcatter), diffraction, and (in the presence of tropospheric

layers) turbulence-layer scatter, reflection, scatter in the presence of rain, and

the strongly refracted (ducted) modes of propagation. Their order in the preceding sentence is that of generally increasing efficiency, but of decreasing

availability. Figure 4, illustrates the situation: there, the TaRa and TbRb

das h-dot trajectori es represent LOS servi ce paths, iso1ated from one another by

their antenna patterns and the intervening terrain, such as at O. The dashed-line

2

. "

.

. "'.

. "
.' " ,

-t~ -_.. --" ------ - ---. h

, JI N

I , .N

h

--- - ~.~ ......

----

--------

=-- -- - ~-~_. '- --

- -- ---- _._-- ---. -- t - i -'

w

hi h

"'fl'I'\o"'- - -- I' N

d

Figure 1. An atmospheric fading mechanism, Mu1tipath [Dougherty, 1968J
.""".,.,-

I '.N

h

---- -- --- -"'---~~"-"_...

----- rr ----.- _---b - --

ht

h

~/.iL:~I .........---- I 'N..

h

-Po

h

-- -- --- I I ,

/0:::;.,,, ,,-'"d .. N

Figure 2. An atmospheric fading mechanism, Isolation. Isolation of terminals,

one from another may be caused by atmospheric layers and ducts

[Dougherty, 1968J.

"
" ~) ,) J

'« ~N

h

- ---.. -------~

lIr:l -- '11",,,,,,,,,//;,,,,--- -

J---

h

-------, ...... ~N

... ht _-.:::..::-:=

U1 ~-

h

~~~-----I ~N

- 0

--------

h

t---- =-.;..~-:.....~~

~/~~-

Figure 3. An atmospheric fading mechanism, Diffraction. This loss in a radio

hole is encountered whenever the radio wave trajectory approaches

too closely to a boundary (such as the earth's surface or the top

and base of a layer) [Dougherty, 1968J.
en

L ./"Tropospheric ......; .. '. ".,.t I:.~ ~"-=-'''' .. .. , .•. ~.:...... .... \,t•• \0.' ." ••••••~'~:......>-\' .•:,).... Loyer ' ~. ,. •••..! "'~~';'l;'<~!:~~'::;" ..

... ,.... ....

. - . - The service - field propagation poth.

- - - - --- A weak interference - field propagation path.

A potentially strong interference - field

propagat ion path.

Fi gure 4. Service and interference propagation paths for two systems.

,~ "] 1
path TaORb represents a weak (diffracted or troposcatter) interference path

[CCIR, 1978a; 1978bJ, but the continuous-line path TaLRb represents a potentially

strong interference path, via the ducting layer at L. Of course, additional reflecting layers can provide additional interference path trajectories. Reflection from

terrain (between T

a

and 0 or Rb and 0) can also provide additional components via

the layer at L [Saxton, 1951; Hall, 1968J.

Whether a ducting layer causes a radio wave (that is incident upon the layer from

below, as in Figure 4) to be scattered, reflected or trapped, depends largely upon

the layer's refractivity gradient, the angle of ray incidence measured relative to the

1ayer boundary's tangent, the 1ayer thickness in terms of wavel ength and sma ll-sca1e

turbulent fluctuations along the layer boundary. Although detailed descriptions of

the relevant parameters are presented in Section 2, we can note here that for critical

refraction or ducting by a ducting layer, the grazing angle of incidence from below,

8, must not exceed a critical value 8c ; i.e., ducting occurs for

0<8 < 8

- c

For larger angles of incidence, the layer will reflect the incident field with a

reflection coefficient given approximately by

(1 a )

(1 b)

Here, 8 is the layer thickness expressed as a multiple of the radio wavelength [Wait,

1964, 1969; Dougherty and Hart, 1976; Hall, 1980J. For a given layer, 8 will

increase with decreasing wavelength so that the above equation indicates a reflection

coefficient that tends to decrease with increasing radio wave frequency. For this

reason, layer reflection would be expected to play the more important role in interference at VHF and for paths up to a hundred kilometers or so in length, but become

of decreasing importance for increasing radio frequency at UHF and for very long

paths. On the other hand, the strong refraction of radio waves by these layers

(ducting) tends to become increasingly important at UHF and higher frequencies and

particularly for long paths.

The thin turbulent layer that commonly bounds the refractivity gradient layer

will also provide a backscatter signal. This has been used as the basis for monitoring the occurrence and motion of tropospheric layers [Bean et al., 1971; Dougherty

and Hartman, 1977; Crane, 1980J.

7
2. DUCTING STRUCTURES

Among the broad array of features which characterize atmospheric layers, specific

parameters have been defined that have a particular relevance for radio wave propagation. The most prominent of these would be the radio refractive index structure

or its equivalent. For example, the bending of a radio wave's trajectory through

the atmosphere results primarily from the spatial variation of the atmospheric

refractive index n(h) with elevation h above the surface. However, a more sensitive . -

measure of this n(h) structure is given by the refractivity structure N(h):

. "

N(h) = [n(h) - lJ 10 6 N units,

and its vertical gradient

= 106 dn N units/km. dh dh

(2a)

(2b)

Nevertheless, in describing the effects of this structure upon radio propagation, it

is often more convenient to describe the gradient in terms of the modified refractivity

structure M(h),

M(h) = N(h) + 157h Munits,

and its gradi ent

dM = + 157 Munits/km. dh dh

(2c)

(2d)

This modified refractivity results from the geometrical transformation from a

spherically stratified atmosphere above a spherical path to a planar stratification

above a flattened earth. This is described in Appendix A and will be illustrated

in the next section. For an elevated ducting layer (dM/dh < 0 Munits/km), the

critical angle of incidence (upon the layer from below) mentioned in (la) is given by

mrad, (3a)

i.e" in milliradians [Gough, 1962J. Here the M-lapse 8M is determined from

8M _ dM 3

-Cfh .8h 10- Munits, (3b)

for a layer thickness 8h in meters and the gradient dM/dh in Munits/km. There is,

8
of course, a corresponding negative critical angle of incidence (upon a layer from

above) when the layer gradient of modified refractivity is positive (dM/dh > a

Munits/km). Its magnitude is still determined from (3a) and (3b). The value given

by (3a) is at the layer base h

o '

2.1 Ducting

For those angles of incidence at the layer base that are equal to or less than

the c~itical value of (3a), the incident wave from below is refracted (bent) by a

trapping layer of (dM/dh < 0 Munits/km) and may propagate efficiently (be ducted)

for long distances. This is illustrated by Figure 5. To the left of Figure 5, the

vertical refractivity profile N(h) depicts a layer 8h meters thick with a gradient

(dN/dh)o < -157 N units/km and at a base height of h

o meters above ground. Above

and below the layer, there are standard gradients (dN/dh : -39 N units/km). The

remainder of Figure 5 depicts the layer extending over an effective earth curvature

R

e that is 4/3 that of the true earth, i.e., Re = 4/3 Ro' Ro = 6370 km. In this

situation, a radio wave launched at the layer base height h

o at (or less than) the

critical angle will follow a curved path (as illustrated, from 0" to a to a or

0" to a l to 01 ) within the layer. A radio wave traveling exterior to the layer will

follow a straight path.

Consider a wave trajectory (ray path) launched from point 0" in Figure 5 at an

initial elevation angle 80 < 8c ' Its dashed-line trajectory is strongly refracted so that,

after achieving a maximum elevation at a', it returns to the layer base at 0'. It

continues, emerging from the layer at an elevation angle 8 = -80 , relative to the layer

tangent at 01 , to travel in a straight-line trajectory past an elevation minimum at b'

to again intercept the layer at its base. There is, of course, a maximum launch angle A

8

0 at 0" that will restrict the trajectory elevation to a maximum coinciding with the

layer top at point a. The continuous-line trajectory of Figure 5 illustrates this A

launch angle 8 = 8. The minimum elevation of the trajectory occurs on the straight- o A

line at b as the traj~ctory continues to a re-entry of the layer. The value of 8

0 is

given by (3a), i.e., 80 = Sc.

These two elevation extremes, h

a = h

o

+ 8h at the top of the ducting layer and

hb well below the base of the layer, constitute the bounds on wave trajectories for

trapped radio waves. The duct width or thickness 0 exceeds the thickness of the

layer 8h,

(4)

9
h a 0 ----'b'---- \ -- -- _L.-----·~·~:~-.. ------ .- b -....:....;;;;;" •.....- I __ ......... 0.:.,.,-::::.. I 0 _------- ...... ./ y./ a - - -...:...,:: ........ ----- ........ -.... ......... ---.:..::::...:"J ./~ ~~

--- - " ,

N

Figure 5. Elevated layer with a ducting gradient, its refractivity

profile, and two trapped trajectories. The reference

elevation is for an effective earth radius R .

e

b

--~~~. ---t--;-~~~_--- 0

----------bI.----.::-.-:::::-7~---

--~~~~.~-- -- -- \ , --..;. ./--'

a 0 -.-'---'

-------------------=-~-~-~-~~~--~--

h

8h

ha -J__ --rho -1--r -1-0"

: 0

hb ---- __1

M d

Figure 6. Elevated layer with a ducting gradient, its modified

refractivity profile, and two trapped trajectories. The

reference elevation is for a flattened earth, D is the

duct thickness; 8h ;s the layer thickness.

10
The trajectories of Figure 5 have been called earth-detached ducting modes (Wait,

1962) .

2.2 Duct Width

Figure 6 is a replotting of Figure 5 for the flattened earth. The modified

refractivity profile M(h) is shown at the left. Note that the top of the duct at ha

and the bottom of the duct at h

b have the same Mvalue,

The remainder of Figure 6 illustrates the conventional symmetrical trajectories

associated with duct propagation. The trajectories are well approximated as parabolic

within a layer of constant gradient [Millington, 1957; Dougherty and Hart, 1979J.

See Appendix A.

From (3b), (4), and (5), the duct width is given by

(6)

".

where (dM/dh) is the (negative) modified refractivity gradient across the ducting o

layer and (dM/dh)b is the (positive) modified refractivity gradient below the

ducting layer.

2.3 Duct Definitions

In addition to the trajectories illustrated in Figure 6 with positive launch

angles, there is also an array of trajectories that could be launched at 011 for

negative angles e > -Iecl. Inspection of Figures 5 and 6 should make it clear that

any trapped wave trajectory will cross the duct axis (the optimum elevation ho) at an

angle whose magnitude has the limit lei 2 lecl relative to the layer tangent at that

point. For the situation illustrated in Figures 5 and 6 where hb 0, a trapped trajectory continues as earth-detached. If the ducting layer were lowered (h b 2 0) and

if the earth1s surface were sufficiently smooth, a trapped trajectory could strike and

be reflected from the surface. Then thE~ lower boundary of the duct would be provided

by the smooth surface; the duct would be a ground-based duct, although the layer would

still be elevated (ho > 0). Duct propagation then would involve both earth-detached

and earth reflected trajectories.

Figure 7 illustrates the three categories of ducts. Note that a ground-based

layer (ho = 0) will also constitute a ground-based duct; then, the layer thickness 8h

equals the duct thickness D and ground reflection is essential to duct propagation.

11
(0 ) (b) (C)

-..{8Mf--

.- - - - 8h: 1--tt ,- h

I 0 a

: l_h b

--

T~o -i.-

-18M f--

c

o

-o

>

Q)

w

Q)

U

o

....

Cf)

Q)

>

o

.0

<!

N

(a) Ground - based layer J

Ground -based duct

(b) Elevated layer J

Ground - based duct

(c) Elevated layer.

Elevated duct

Figure 7. Elevated and surface duct parameters .

..
If the reflecting surface has a slope, the additional tilt imparted to the reflected _

trajectory may permit it to escape the duct.

2.4 Duct Frequency Dependence

Early work in duct propagation defined a minimum (cut-off) frequency of ~ropagation by an analogy to waveguide transmission [Kerr, 1951J. However, experimental

studies have demonstrated that the "cu t-off" effect occurs over a range of frequencies rather than abruptly at a specific frequency. The Wait and Spies (1969) fullwave solution of duct propagation showed that propagation normally occurs with very

low losses for earth-detached modes. However, the loss coefficient, a in dB/km of

path length, increases rapidly for decreasing frequencies approaching a critical

value. A.S. Ratner (private communications) showed that for frequencies greater

than trapping value

f ::; 1572 GHz

t D1. 8 (7)

radio energy will propagate with a loss coefficient a < 0.03 dB/km. For lower frequencies, the coefficient would be expected to increase rapidly [Neesen and deHaas,

1980J. In (7), the duct thickness D is in meters.

2.5 Propagation Losses for Ducts

Propagation within a duct has long been the subject of theoretical as well as

experimental investigation; evaluation of propagation losses dates to Kerr [1951J.

Wait has placed the very wide variety of solutions into a common context [Wait, 1962J;

they all assume horizontally uniform ducts (ducts whose characteristics, h

o ' D, ft ,

etc., do not vary horizontally). Since, the full-wave solutions have been extended to

piecewise uniform ducts, a significantly closer approach to atmospheric ducts [Bahar

and Wait, 1965; Cho and Wait, 1978J. Currently there are widespread efforts to relate

the full-wave modal solutions for duct propagation to the ray-trajectory formulation

-.

[Cho et al., 1979; Migliora et al., 1980; Ott, 1980J. This could provide the advantage

of leading to engineering-type solutions. For the present, however, there are empirical bounds that can be given for the role of duct propagation in interference fields

[Dougherty and Hart, 1979J.

Commonly for tropospheric radio wave propagation, the free-space field or the

free-space basic transmission loss is taken as a reference. That assumes an

inverse-square dependence upon the pl~opagation path length, since the field expands

in the two dimensions normal to the direction of propagation. However, in duct

propagation, because of the trapping constraint on spreading in one (vertical)

13
dimension, the reference loss within the duct will have only an inverse-distance

dependence on distance. However, there is still the loss, a < 0.03 dB/km. For

propagation between two terminals within a duct, i.e., when both terminals are

immersed within the duct, the basic transmission loss is

Lb 92.45 + 20 log f + 10 log do + a do + IA dB, (8)

for the frequency f > f

t , in gigahertz and the path length within the duct, do in

kilometers. For the earth-detached modes illustrated by the wave trajectories of

Figures 5 and 6, a 0.03 dB/km; for the hb 0 and ground-reflected modes, the

appropriate a would be much larger [CCrR, 1978c]. The summation term in (8) is the

sum of coupling losses discussed below. Note that the first three terms of (8) differ

from the expression for the free-space basic transmission loss

LbO = 92.45 + 20 log f + 20 log d dB. (9)

only in the coefficient 10 rather than 20 for the third term. For f in megahertz, the

first term in (8) and (9) would be the familiar 32.45 [CCrR, 1978d].

For an actual telecommunications system with non-isotropic antennas, the minimum

transmission loss would be given by (8) minus the antenna power gains in decibels above

an isotropic dBi). Since only that energy would be trapped that lies within the range

-ec e 8c ' there is for each terminal an antenna-media coupling loss

Ac = -10 log (218cl/~) dB,

= 0.0 dB (10)

for an antenna lobels half-power beamwidth of in milliradians directed along the duct.

When the terminal antenna1s center of radiation is at h

o (the optimum coupling

elevation), 8c is given by (3a); at other elevations, see Appendix A. There is a

similar coupling loss when the antennals center of radiation is within the same

elevation range of the duct but just beyond the duct1s horizontal extent. Then the

8c of (10) would be replaced by D/dL where 0 is the duct width of (6) and d

L is the

distance from the end of the duct to the terminal beyond (exterior to) the duct. When

an antenna is external to and above or below the duct, the antenna-media coupling

loss of (10) is replaced by

a), a basic transmission loss given by (9) for that portion of the

path length that is exterior to the duct,

14
plus b), an interior/exterior coupling loss of about 6 dB when the terminal

is above the duct and about 10 dB or more when the terminal is below

the duct [Dougherty and Hart, 1979J.

In order for a wave trajectory drawn from a point below a duct to be trapped within a

horizontally uniform duct, the trajectory must have a grazing incidence from below

at the duct base elevation hb. Therefore, unless the elevated duct is bounded below

by another ducting layer, it appears that trapping of a wave trajectory (from below the

duct) would require either a discontinuity in the duct or a tilt in the duct base; a

wavy structure is a feature not uncommon in elevated ducts [Gossard, 1962; Gossard and

Richter, 1970; Bean et al., 1971J. A recent experimental study observed that efficient

coupling into (and out of) an elevated duct was associated with an unspecified periodicity in the duct structure [Crane, 1980J. A later section will apply the foregoing

expressions in a specific example.

There are additional losses in duct propagation attributable to discontinuities

in the duct structure and to other atmospheric conditions, such as the frequency-andtime-dependent absorption by the gaseous atmosphere [CCIR, 1978e; 1978fJ.

3. LAYER AND DUCT CHARACTERISTICS

In the case of layer-reflected modes and ducted modes of propagation, either as

inhibitors of service fields or as enhancers of interference fields, the basic requirement is the presence of tropospheric layers of sufficiently strong (i.e., ducting) gradients. Given their presence, the efficiency of propagation associated with

these layers is determined by their positioning (h b, ho' ha) relative to the telecommunication terminals and their trapping frequency relative to the telecommunication

system's transmission frequency.

3.1 Occurrence of Surface Ducts

The occurrence of refractivity gradients averaged over the first 100 meters

above the surface has been described from historical meteological data on a worldwide

basis [Bean et al., 1966J. More recently, additional data have become available for

selected areas, notably the northern hemisphere [Samson, 1975J, Canada [Segal and

Barrington, 1977J, and India [Majumdar et al., 1977J. From these data, we can take

the occurrence of initial gradients (dN/dh < -157 N units/km) as direct measures of

the occurrence of ground-based ducts that are 100 meters thick. Of course, the

dependence upon surface reflections (and increased propagation loss) in such ducts

will not be clear, since the strong ducting gradient may have occurred either at the

surface or slightly elevated within that initial 100 meters. On overwater paths, the

distinction has usually been maintained; some ocean areas have been extensively

mapped for the probability of long-distance propagation via shallow evaporation ducts

15
or via the deeper advection ducts with slightly elevated layers [Dougherty and Hart,

1976J.

There are some uncertainties associated with these ground-based ducts, especially those observed at the ~any recording stations on land, The widespread

simultaneous observation of ducts over land does not mean c necessarily, that these

ducts are horizontally extensive (i.e., continuous) unless the terrain is approximately flat. The larger-scale irregularities of terrain (hills, cities, etc.) tend

to modify the characteristics and limit the continuity or horizontal extent of ducts

over land. Sea-surface ducts tend to be more prevalent and extensive than those over

land, although there is some evidence that ocean depth and ocean currents can limit

their horizontal extent. Nevertheless, although individual ducts are of finite

length, there is little physical justification for an abrupt specific limit to horizontal duct dimensions. The limit has to be statistically defined, perhaps also

varying with climatology and geographical locations, for which there are inadequate

data at present for the limits of either overland or oversea surface ducts.

3.2 Occurrence of Elevated Ducts

Descriptions of elevated layer statistics are also available worldwide [Bean

et al., 1966; Cahoon and Riggs, 1964J and for selected locales [Dougherty et al.,

1967; Hall and Comer, 1969; Segal and Barrington, 1977; Ortenburger et al., private

communicationJ. These provide annual and/or worst-month summaries for the occurrence

of ducting and/or superrefractive elevated layers and/or their associated elevated duct

parameters (dN/dh, 8M, 8h, hb, ho' D, f

t , etc.), all based upon historical radiosonde

data. Figure 8 is a contour map for ~~e United States, of the occurrence of elevated

ducts as a percent of an average year, but based on only five years of radiosonde data.

Except for the California Coast, the higher values of percent occurrence of elevated

ducts (i.e., elevated layers with ducting gradients) is more common in the eastern

half of the United States.

Figure 9 is a similar presentation except the occurrence is the percent of the

worst months. The worst month is the month with the highest occurrences of elevated

ducts. For most of the Nation, the worst month occurs in the summer, midsummer in

West, late summer in the East. Along the Gulf Coast, the worst month occurs in the

Spring. There are exceptions to these broad generalities. The worst month occurs

in the Fall in the great basin (centered on Nevada and the desert portions of

California, Arizona, and Utah) and in northwest Florida and the southern portions of

Georgia, Alabama, and South Carolina.

Since these data are deduced from radiosonde measurements of the vertical structures of atmospheric temperature and humidity, they carry some limitations not app1i16
-I

-......J

Figure 8. The occurrence of elevated ducts in percent of all hours of the year.
':::tJ

/

q

is

'\l

\7

Figure 9. The occurrence of elevated ducts in percent of all hours of the worst month. For no month of

the year would the expected occurrence of elevated ducts exceed the indicated values.
- .

cable to the raw data. For example, the radio meteorologist is concerned with the

vertical refractivity structure on a much finer scale than is of interest to the

(non-radio-) meteorologist who collects the data. The radiosonde instruments' sensor

response times and their sequential measure of temperature and humidity, although adequate for the National Weather Service's interests, do cause an overestimation of the

elevated layer's thickness and an underestimation of its refractivity gradients [Bean

and Cahoon, 1961; Bean and Dutton, 1961J. Since a gradient dN/dh < -157 N units/km

is evidence of an elevated duct, systematic underestimation means that ducting gradients occur somewhat more frequently than would be deduced from the data. Crane (1980)

reported that the observation of ducts by radar surveillance was more frequent than

indicated by radiosonde data. Similarly, the transition frequency, deduced through (7)

from estimates of D in (6), is somewhat erroneous because of overestimates of 8h and

underestimates of (dN/dh)o'

There is another disadvantage of estimating the occurrence of elevated ducts

from historical meteorological data. Radiosonde data are usually collected twice a

day (at 1200 and 2400 GMT) which mayor may not correspond to the most favorable

time of the day for the occurrence of ducts at each location. The data may, therefore, either ~estimate or underestimate the day-by-day occurrence of ducts.

Despite these disadvantages, their corrections could be estimated from additional

effort and data so that the large body of historical data would still be useful.

For example, identification of the sensor types will permit a correction in the

estimates of the layer gradient and thickness [Dougherty et al., 1967J. Correlation

of radiosonde historical data at certain locations with direct refractometer data

obtained nearby [Bean, 1979J would permit estimated corrections for the

occurrence of layers and some of their spatial variation.

3.3 Elevated Duct Statistics

Figure 10 locates the 107 radiosonde stations in the contiguous United States and

nearby portions of Mexico and Canada that constituted the sources of the five-year

data base for the elevated duct statistics [Ortenburger et al., private communicationJ.

Figure 11 is a contour map of the median minimum trapping frequency, f

t (50%),

for the elevated ducts. This was based upon (7) and the median duct thickness data,

D(50%). Although the ft (50%) values are usually UHF, they are in the upper VHF range

along the Gulf coasts and coasts of southern California and Florida. Of course, the

duct thicknesses vary; the range of the resulting f

t values is indicated by the additional contour maps of ft(lO%) and ft (90%) in Appendix B.

Figure 12 is a contour mapping of the optimum coupling elevation expected for

50% of elevated ducts. For example, the optimum coupling elevation (i.e., the

19
, ,

. "

.

o

rretI

U

.....

+-'

etI

U

o

rVl

s::

o

Q)

.s:::.

+-'

4-

o

.....

.s:::.

r-....

o

r-

.....

So

+-'

Vl

etI

+-'

etI

-0

Q)

-0

s::

o

Vl

o

.....

-0

etI

S-

.....

+-'

etI

+-'

Vl

.

Vl

s::

o

Q)

S-

::l

0'1

.....

LL.

Q)

.s:::.

I-

.

-

-"

o

\~"-- \. ( / '1

-==L \l\/ .,

r'~~~· ,~,~ "!-ic...\ \.r. _. "~" -~-l, r" r" I · • /~ .--\.. • , .. f , .• ;-" - F "--'i'-J

c:J .Y\...--;---' \., •

• " _...../1 ~. I 1• ../------ .->-__- II "'-- ~~., \ ~'-r---"-!"" "'-. • I ,(. I 1

~""'--_. I _ • .--L-_",,-------- , I. ) • • j' . .----r-r- (I lIJ ,,,\.

6/ r/'. ( , ./' _-i. ,/f,:'J-f

.~~lf'=1_ -'1 r • \.S'...;-/ · i ! ·,i--'iL. . (

<l ~·-'-'-r·-L'I. '-'I/~-C

----:j•I.i L' • -+I. ~/.~" I )-

'l. l..i-'---i-'~l..'.J:' • /JLr~I) 7~_~·:) r-----.t-.A

,-.J j--,..,,--!..--; • •7~ "{) • I ! ,. y :

' i f-- ./<

.o::!}

•

20
N

--'

"

Figure 11. The median minimum trapping frequency, f

t

(50%) in megahertz.
N

N

Figure 12. The optimum coupling elevation, h

o(50%) in meters above the surface, expected for 50% of all

elevated ducts.
layer base elevation and the optimum elevation for launching or receiving energy in

the duct) over the lower half of Lake Michigan is h

o

=1250 meters above the surface.

The median M-unit lapses !6M(50%)\ s of all elevated ducts is given by the contour

mapping of Figure 13. Over the southern half of Lake Michigan !6M(50%)\ : 4 M-units s

so that the median critical ducting angle expected at the optimum coupling elevation

h iss from (3a)s e (50%): ;-g- mil1iradians. o . c

In Figures 14 and 15 s contour mappings are presented for the median elevations

of the base and top of elevated ducts s respectivelys hb(50%) and h

a(50%) in m~ters

above the surface. Over the southern portion of Lake-Michigan s for examples the

median duct base h

b(50%) is at about 1200 meters and the median duct top ha(50%) is

at about 1700 meters above the surface.

Of courses each of the foregoing parameters (hbshoshasft) can vary from

duct to duct; however s an estimate of the range of their values may be deduced from

the 10 and 90 percentile values. These are given by the contour maps of Appendix B.

4. ILLUSTRATIVE EXAMPLES

To illustrate the use of the foregoing material in the estimation of expected

interference fields s consider the Great Lakes region of the United States. That region

is characterized by warm humid summers and cold cloudy winters; atmospheric layering

is somewhat more prevalent in the summers.

From Bean et a1. (1966)s at Flints Michigan s between Lakes Huron and Erie (one

of the stations in Figure 10)s surface ducts occur about 2% of the time both in August

and as averaged over the four seasons with a median thickness of 0(50%) : 100 m. The

corresponding minimum trapping frequency iss from (7)s

o _ 1572 _ ft (50%) - 1 8 - 0.39 GHz . (1 00) . (11 a)

That iss frequencies above about 400 MHz will be trapped by surface ducts for about

p = 0.5(2%) = 1% of the time. This observation of surface ducts is actually the observation of refractivity gradients < -157 N unitsfkm s n over the initial 100 m above the

surface (i.e. s a change of at least 15.7 Nunits). From an examination of Figure 7s

this refractivity lapse could have been provided by a variety of structures. If we

assume it is entirely due to an elevated layer of thickness 8h = 10 ms then

< - 15.7 = -1 57 N unitsfm =- 1570 Nunitsfkm. dh - 10'

23

(11 b)
N

&\

q ~v

C::. 01

Figure 13. The median M-unit lapse across the observed elevated ducts, I~M(50%)1 in M-units.
N

<J1

"

Figure 14. The median base height of elevated ducts, hb(50%) in meters above the surface.
N

O"'l

"1250 i

-

!

----L _

Figure 15. The median elevation of the top of elevated ducts, h

a (50%) in meters above the surface .

.'
From (2b), for p = 1% of the time

~~ = -1570 + 157 = -1413 Munits/km

= -1.413 Munits/me

From (3b),

8M = -1.413(10) = -14.13M units.

From (3a),

28 = 2 /2(14.13) = 10.63 mrad = 0.61°.

c

From (10) for > 10.63 mrad,

Ac = -10 log (10.63/~)

= -10.27 + 10 log

(11 c)

(11 d)

(11 e)

(11 f)

For both terminals immersed in the surface duct (hT,hR < 100 m at most), the basic

transmission loss for a 145 km path at 0.53 GHz is given by (8) for p = 1% of the

time as

Lb(l%) 92.45 + 20 10g(0.53) + 10 log (145) + 0.03 (145)

- 20.54 + 10 log ~T + 10 log ~R

or

Lb(l%) 92.36 + 10 log ~T + 10 log ~R . (12 )

Unless the beamwidths exceeds a few degrees, this duct basic transmission loss will be

less than the free-space basic transmission loss of (9),

Lbo = 92.45 + 20 log (0.53) + 20 log (145) = 130.16 dB. (13 )

4.1 Application to Broadcasting

Consider a broadcasting station (or the base station of a land-mobile system)

operating in the vicinity of F1int, Michigan, in the 0.45 to 1.0 GHz frequency range.

From Figures 8 and 9, we note that elevated ducting layers occur in the Flint area

for about 18% of the year, but for about 45% of the worst month (August). The median

minimum trapping frequency, from Figure 11, is about 0.4 GHz. That is, interference

signals at f > 0.4 GHz could be supported via elevated layers for about 0.5(18%) = 9%

of the year or about 0.5(45%) = 22% of August.

27
Let us assume the system parameter values

f = 0.53 GHz, ~H = 50 m,

h = 75 m, = 10° or 174.5 mrad, (14 ) T T

h = 10 m, = 45° or 785.4 mrad. R R

where f is the transmission frequency, ~H is a measure of terrain irregularity (the

10% to 90% range of elevations at 10 to 50 km from the transmitter [CCIR, 1978aJ),

the h

T and h

R are the heights of the transmitting and receiving antenna centers of

radiation in meters above some common reference elevation, and the ~T and ~R are

the transmitting and receiving antennas vertical-plane half-power beamwidths. At

a distance of d = 145 km, the basic transmission loss for surface duct propagation

is, from (12) and (14),

Lb(l%) 92.36 + 10 log (174.5) + 10 log (785.4) = 143.73 dB. (15 )

In the case of elevated ducts, we note from Figure 14 that the median elevatedduct base height is h

b(50%) > 1400 mso that both terminals given by (14) are positioned below the elevated duct. By means of energy coupled into and out of non-uniform

elevated ducts, as mentioned in the paragraphs following (10) in job- section 2.5,

an upper bound on the basic transmission loss for a field at a distance of 145 km

would be given by

Lb(9%) Lbo + 10 + 10 = Lbo + 20 dB.

From (13) and (16)

Lb(9%) 130.16 + 20 = 150.16 dB.

(16 )

(17)

The foregoing values of basic transmission loss may be related to estimates of

the corresponding field strengths by

(18 )

for the expected ducted fields expressed in decibels below the free-space field.

That is, from (13), (15), (17), and (18),

20 log [Eo/E(l%)J = 143.73

20 log [Eo/E(9%)J =150.16

130.16 = 13.57 dB(Eo)

130.16 = 20 dB(Eo)'

28

(19a)

(19b)
For the parameter values of (14), the CCrR [1978gJ provides predicted broadcast

fields for both the standard condition (50% of ar1 locations for 50% of the time)

and for selected percentages of the time (50% of all locations for p = 10% and 1%

of the time). For paths over either the Mediterranean Sea or overland (at roughly

the same North latitudes as the Great Lakes), Table I lists the calculated fields,

from (19a) and (19b), and the empirical CCrR predictions. For mixed land/sea paths,

the CCrR recommends interpolation on the basis of the proportion of the oversea to

total path lengths.

Table 1. Comparison of Broadcast Fields in Decibels Below the Free-Space Level

at Flint, Mich., for 50% of Receiver Locations 450 to 1000 MHz.

p CCrR (overland, 6H = 50 m) Calculated

%of the time 20 log [E(p)/E(50%)J 20 log [Eo/E(p)J 20 log [Eo/E(p)J

1 14 dB 45 dB 13.6 dB

10 * 7 52 20.0

50 0 59

* approximately, 9 and 10%

The first column of Table 1 is the percent of the year. The second column is

the empirically expected service field level relative to the median (50%) field;

this indicates modest field enhancements for 10% and 1% of the time. The third

column is the same listing of service fields, but expressed in decibels below the

free-space level. The third column should be compared with the fourth column values

of interference fields to see the effect on overland paths when there are more

horizontally extensive elevated ducts present. These fourth column fields exceed

those of the third column by the order of 30 dB.

The CCrR predictions of broadcast fields are representative of average climatic

conditions throughout the temperate zone [CCIR, 1978gJ. As averages of data from

broadcast systems of North America, Europe, Japan, etc., they are appropriate for

the prediction of service fields. However, for the purpose of protecting against

interference, a biased estimate is required [CCIR, 1978hJ. One might prefer an

estimate from many broadcast systems (of the field exceeded for 1% of the time)

based upon the highest observed 1% field, not the average observed 1% field. Table

illustrates the inadequacy of estimating interference fields (highest 1% fields),

by service-field (average 1% fields) prediction methods.

29
5. RECOMMENDATIONS

The preceding text, particularly its referenced material, demonstrates the

feasibility of predicting interference fields. The next step would be the development of more complete prediction procedures. Advances are required in four aspects

of the problem:

(a) additional experimental studies,

(b) further theoretical developments,

(c) formulation of more complete engineering expressions,

and' (d) an improved historical data base.

Let us now discuss these four items in further detail:

(a) Additional experimental studies are required to specify further the horizontal periodicity of elevated ducting layers [Crane, 1980J to determine which aspects

of that structure contribute to the efficient coupling of energy into and out of the

duct from above or below. Is the periodicity simply D, that of a horizontal sinusoidal structure with distance, ho(x) = ho(o) + c sin (2nx/D), that has been occasionally observed by the Acoustic or FM-CW Radars [Hall, 1971; Richter, 1969J? Is

the periodicity more subtle, such as 8M = 8Mo

sin (2nx/D) or 8h = 8ho sin (2nx/D)?

Are there internal variations of structure that would complicate ducting behavior at

EHF and higher frequencies?

(b) Further theoretical progress is required. In the case of horizontally

uniform layers, some rudimentary but encouraging developments have raised the possibility of associating the various modal (full-wave) solutions with particular

wave-trajectories (ray tracing) [Cho et al., 1979; Migliora et al., 1980; Ott,

1980J. Probably, further developments in wave trajectory characteristics will be

required (Appendix A) before the mode/ray association will mature and permit extension to nonuniform-duct propagation. Further development of theoretical solutions

is required for horizontally non-uniform layers. The non-uniform structures of

interest, in addition to the already treated piecewise continuous ducts [Cho and

Wait, 1978J, are those for horizontally continuously changing layer thicknesses or

refractivity gradients and whatever structures are developed under (a) above.

(c) Formulation of more complete engineering expressions would proceed rapidly

if a general relationship between the modal (full-wave) solutions and wave-trajectory

solutions can be developed. This would permit the accommodation of antenna patterns,

polarization, the localized proximity of irregular terrain boundaries, and irregular

atmospheric stratification; these are so necessary to the system design engineer.

(d) An improved historical data base would be readily achieved by an expansion

of the data base, a refinement of the data base, and the spatial and temporal

30
extrapolation of the data base. Expansion of the data base would involve the incorporation of much more than the present three years of data -- at least 20 to 30 years

of data -- to determine the mean (or median), annual or worst-month parameter distribution of characteristics and their year-to-year variation. If the year-to-year

temporal distributions are well behaved, their standard deviation about median-year

values would probably suffice. Initially, this need not be carried out for all 107

stations in the United States; one would start with the data from a dozen selected

representative stations.

A refinement of the data base would require some modification of the successful

data-reduction procedures employed to date. The modifications would be to obtain

better estimates of the elevated-layer refractivity gradients and their vertical

extents. They would attempt estimates of lag coefficients to correct for the timesequential temperature/humidity recordings for rising sensors with finite response

characteristics [Bean and Cahoon, 1961; Bean and Dutton, 1961; Dougherty et al., 1967J.

A spatial and temporal extrapolation of the proposed improved data base is

implied when data from twice-a-day soundings at fixed locations are used to estimate

the occurrence of ducting layers over twenty-four hours and in a region hundreds of

miles square. The diurnal variation of surface and elevated layers should be

characterized at select locations in the United States. For example, the data from

refractometer soundings recorded over U.S. locations such as the Great Lakes [Bean,

1979J, should be compared with the same-day radiosonde data from nearby weather

stations. Similarly, the data from lIadjacentll U. S. weather stations should be

compared.

The above four aspects requlrlng further study are likely to proceed in

independently, but not isolated efforts. However, they may not be able to proceed

expeditiously. The referenced investigators are likely to be interested in continuing

their efforts, but they may require encouragement by financial and other support.

Their interest, demonstrated ability, and need for support should be matched to the

urgent requirements expressed at the GWARC-79 [ITU, 1979J for data on ducting and

interference fields. These requirements also exist for the U. S. National Radio

Regulators (the FCC and NTIA).

31
6. REFERENCES

Bahar E., and J.R. Wait (1965), Propagation in a model terrestrial waveguide of non-uniform height: theory and experiment, J. Res. NBS 690, V No. 11,

November, 1445-1463.

Bean, B.R. (1979), Comment on evaluation of evaporation from Lake Ontario

during IFYGL by a modified mass transfer equation, Water Resources Research

li, No.3, 731.

Bean, B.R. and B.A. Cahoon (1961), Limitations of radiosonde punch-card records for

radiometeorological studies, J. of Geophysical Res. 66, No.1, January, 328-331.

Bean, B.R., B.A. Cahoon, C.A. Samson, and G.O. Thayer (1966), A world atlas of

atmospheric radio refractivity, ESSA Monograph 1, NTIS Access No. AO-648-805.*

Bean, B.R., and E.J. Dutton (1961), Concerning radiosondes, lag constants, and

radio refractive index profiles, J. of Geophysical Res. 66, No. 11, November,

3717-3722,

Bean, B.R., R.E. McGavin, R.B. Chadwick, and B.D. Warner (1971), Preliminary results

of utilizing the high resolution FM radar as a boundary-layer probe, Boundary Layer Meteorology 1, 446-473.

Cahoon, B.A., and L.P. Riggs (1964), Climatology of elevated superrefractive layers arising from atmospheric subsidence, Proc. World Conference of Radio Meteorology, Boulder, CO. (American Met. Soc., Boston, MA).

CCIR (1978a), Report 715, Propagation by diffraction.**

CCIR (1978b), Report 238-3, Propagation data required for trans-horizon radio-relay systems.**

CCIR (1978c), Report 724, Propagation data for the evaluation of coordination

distance in the frequency range 1 to 40 GHz.**

CCIR (1978d), Recommendation 525, Calculation of free-space attenuation.**

CCIR (1978e), Report 719, Attenuation by atmospheric gases.**

CCIR (1978f), Report 718, Effects of tropospheric refraction of radiowave

propagation.**

CCIR (1978g), Annex of Recommendation 370-3, VHF and UHF Propagation curves for the

frequency range from 30 MHz to 1000 MHz.**

CCIR (1978h), Report 569-1, The evaluation of propagation factors in interference

problems at frequencies greater than 0.6 GHz.**

Cho, S.H., and J. R. Wait (1978), EM wave propagation in a laterally non-uniform

tropophere, Radio Science 11, No.2, March-April, 253.

* National Technical Information Service (NTIS) 5285 Port Royal Road, Springfield, VA 22161. '

** Vol. V., P~opagation in Non-Ionized Media, CCIR XIV Plenary Assembly, Kyoto, Japan. Avallable from NTIS*, Access. No. PB 298-025/PG.

32
Cho, S.H., C.G. Migliora, and L.B. Felsen (1979), Hybrid ray-mode formulation of propagation in a tropospheric duct, Session F-6, Proc. URSI/USNC Nat'l Radio Science

Mtg., U. of Washington, Seattle, Wash., 18-22 June.

Crane R.K.(1981), A review of transhorizon propagation phenomena, to appear in the

March-April issue of Radio Science.

Dougherty, H.T. (1968), A survey of microwave fading mechanisms, remedies, and appli- ~ations, ESSA Tech. Report ERL 69-WPL4, NTIS Access Number COM-71-50288.*

Dougherty, H.T., and B.A. Hart (1976), Anomalous propagation and interference fields,

Office of Telecommunications Report 76-107, NTIS Access No. PB-262-477.*

Dougherty, H.T., and B.A. Hart (1979), Recent progress in duct propagation predictions,

IEEE Trans. Ant. Prop. AP-27, No.4, July, 542-548. .

Dougherty, H.T., and W.J. Hartman (1977), Performance of a 400 Mbit/s system over a

1ine-of-sight path, IEEE Trans. Comm. COM-25, No.4, April, 427-432.

Dougherty, H.T., R.E. McGavin, and R.W. Krinks (1970), An experimental study of

atmospheric conditions conducive to high radio fields, Office of Telecommunications Report OT/ITSRR4, (available from NTIS under Access No. COM-75-11138/AS).*

Dougherty, H.T., L.P. Riggs, and W.B. Sweezy (1967), Characteristics of the Atlantic

Trade Wind System significant for radio propagation, ESSA Tech. Report IER 29-

ITSA29, (NTIS Access No. AD-651-541).*

Gossard, E.E. (1962), The reflection of microwaves by a refractive layer perturbed by

waves, IRE Trans. AP-10, No.3, May, 317-325.

Gossard, E.E., and J.H. Richter (1970), The shape of internal waves of finite amplitude

from high-resolution radar sounding of the lower atmosphere, J. Atmospheric

Sciences ~, No.6, Sept., 971-973.

Gough, M.W. (1962), Propagation influence in microwave link operation, Institute of

Radio Engineers (U.K.) 24, July, 53-72.

Hall, F.F., Jr. (1971), Acoustic remote sensing of temperature and velocity structure

in the atmosphere, Statistical Methods and Instrumentation in Geophysics, A.G.

Kje1aas (Ed.), Oslo, Sweden: Teknologisk Forlag A/S.

Hall, M.P.M. (1968), Further evidence of VHF propagation by successive reflections

from an elevated layer in the troposhere, Proc. lEE 115, No. 11, 1595-1596.

Hall, M.P.M. (1980), Effects of the Troposphere on Radio Communications, lEE Electromagnetic Waves Series, #8, Peter Peregrinus LTD, Stevenage, UK.

Hall, M.P.M., and C.M. Comer (1969), Statistics of tropospheric radio refractiveindex soundings taken over a three-year period in the United Kingdom, Proc.

lEE 116, No.5, May, 685-690.

ITU (1976), Radio Regulations, Vols. I and II, (ISBN 92-61-00181-5), International

Telecommunication Union, Geneva, Switzerland.

* National Technical Information Service (NTIS), 5285 Port Royal Road,

Springfield, VA 22161.

33
ITU (1979), Final Acts of the World Administrative Radio Conference, Vols. I and II,

International Telecommunications Union, Geneva, Switzerland.

Kerr, D.E. (1951), Propagation of short radio waves, Chap. 1, Radiation Laboratory

Series, Vol. 13 (McGraw Hill Book Company, Inc., New York, NY). Also available

in paperback (Dover, Inc., New York, NY).

Majumdar, S.C., S.K. Sarkar, and A.P. Mitra (1977), Atlas of tropospheric radio

refractivity over the Indian sub-continent, National Physical Laboratory, New

Delhi, India.

Migliora, C.G., S.H. Cho, and L.B. Felson (1980), Hybrid ray-mode analysis of propaga- tion in an elevated tropospheric duct, Proc. URSI Comm. F Open Symposium, Lennoxville, Quebec, 761-7.

Millington, G. (1957), The concept of the constant radius of the earth in tropospheric

propagation, Marconi Rev. 20, No. 126, 79-93.

Neesen, J., and J. deHaas (1980), Measured statistics of transmission loss due to

ducting on transhorizon links at 6.4 and 7.4 GHz, Proc. URSI-F Symposium,

Quebec, Canada.

NTIA (1979), Manual of Regulations and Procedures for Federal Radio Frequency Management, U.S. Dept of Comm., National Telecommunications and Information Administration, 1325 G. St. N.W., Wash., DC 20005.

Ott, R.H. (1980), Roots of the modal equation for EM wave propagation in a tropospheric duct, J. of Math. Physics £L, No.5, May, 1256-1266.

Richter, J.H. (1969), High resolution tropospheric radar sounding, Radio Sci. !'

No. 12, December, 1261-1268.

Samson, C.A. (1975), Refractivity gradients in the northern hemisphere, Office of

Telecommunications Report 75-59, NTIS Access No. COM-75-10776/AS.*

Saxton, J.A. (1951), The propagation of meteorological waves beyond the horizon,

Proc. lEE, 98, Pt. III, 360-369.

Segal, B., and R.E. Barrington (1977), Tropospheric refractivity atlas for Canada,

CRC Report 1315, Dept. of Communications, Ottawa, Canada.

Wait, J.R. (1962), Electromagnetic waves in stratified media, Chaps. XI and XII

(Pergamon Press, New York, NY). There is also a second edition, 1970.

Wait, J.R. (1964), A note on the VHF reflection from a tropospheric layer, Radio

Sci. 68D, No.7. July, 847-848.

Wait, J.R. (1969), Reflection from subrefractive layers, Electronic Letters ~' No.4,

February 20, 64-65.

Wait, J.R., and K.P. Spies (1969), Internal guiding of microwaves by an elevated

tropospheric layer, Radio Sci. !' No.4, April, 319-326.

* National Technical Information Service (NTIS), 5285 Port Royal Road,

Springfield, VA 22161.

34
APPENDIX A: DUCTING EXPRESSIONS

Millington [1957J showed that a radio wave trajectory within a layer of constant

refractivity gradient may be closely approximated by a parabolic arc. His results

can be expressed as

y(x) = xeo + x

2 G/2 m, (A 1) ..

-

e(x) = e + xG mrad, (A2) 0

G = [g + 157J 10-3 Munits/m. (A3 )

The O2 y 2 6h of (A1) gives the height of a point on the wave trajectory in meters

above the layer base elevation (ho

in Figures 5 and 6) and at a distance of x kilometers from the origin (y = 0, x = 0). Note that (A1) is relative to the layer base,

regardless of its shape; its shape may change as the layer is arched or flat, but

the equation is unchanged. Equation (A2) determines the elevation angle along the

wave trajectory in mil1iradians and is the derivative (with respect to x) of

(A1) for the small-angle approximation e(x) tan e(x). The 1ayer 1 s modified refractivity gradient G = Go < 0 Munits/m would be determined by (A3) from the 1ayer's ducting refractivity gradient go < - 157 N units/km. For that portion of the duct below

the ducting layer, then y(x) = h(x) - ho 2 0, where hb 2 h(x) 2 h

o. The modified

refractivity gradient G = Gb > 0 Munits/m is also determined from (A3), but for

a refractivity gradient gb > - 157 N units/km. Commonly,

Gb = [- 40 + 157J 10-3 = 0.117 Munits/m. (A4)

By manipulation of (Al), (A2), and (A3), several of the trajectory characteristics

may be determined. For example, the maximum take-off angle (at x = 0) for a trapped

trajectory is known as the critical take-off angle

e = + /218MI mrad, (AS) c -

where the choice of sign is such as to maintain e/G positi ve. In (A5),

oM = G 6h < 0 Munits, (A6) 0

35
and 8h is the ducting-layer thickness in meters. The duct thickness is, from (6),

m. (An

For an i'nitial elevation angle 8 at y = 0, the wave trajectory parabolic arc within o A

the layer will have, from (A2), a maximum elevation y at

A

X = - 8/Go

and

' ..: A

y = 8

0 x/2 = -8~/2Go

Of course,

Y _

A (8)2 . 0

8fl- ~. 1.0

At the point y(x),

x = x [1 + Q(x)]

and

e(x) = .:!:. 80 Q(x)

km,

m.

km,

mrad,

(A8)

(A9)

(Ala)

(All )

(A12)

where the choice of sign is the opposite of that for (All). For example, 8(x) > a A

for x < x. The Q(x) is given by

/ A

Q(x) = I l-y(x)/y for y > 0,

36

(A13)
and

where

A G

Yb = 6h.-2. < 0 Gb

for y < 0,

m.

(A14)

(A15)

For the trajectory parabolic arc, y(x) > 0, the chord length from y(x=O) to

y(x=x ) = 0 is max

A

(xmax)o = 2x=-28o/Go > 0 km. (A16)

For the trajectory parabolic arc y(x) 0, the chord length is given by

A

= 2xb = -2801Gb > 0

37

km,

km.

(A17a)

(A17b)
APPENDIX B: CONTOUR MAPS FOR 10 AND 90 PERCENTILE VALUES

This appendix contains the upper and lower decile values as bounds for the four

duct parameters ft , hb, ho' and ha"

38
w

Figure B-1. An upper bound for the minimum trapping frequency, ft(lO%) in megahertz. Only for less

than 10% of elevated ducts would efficient trapping be limited to frequencies exceeding

the indicat€d values.
..j:::>

C>

Figure B-2. A lower bound for the minimum trapping frequency, ft (90%) in megahertz. For more than 90%

of the elevated ducts, efficient trapping could occur for frequencies exceeding the

indicated values.
+::>

---'

Figure B-3. An upper bound on the base height of the elevated ducts, hb(lO%) in meters above the surface.

For all but 10% of the elevated ducts, the expected base height h

b would not exceed the

indicated values.
.j::>

N

Figure 8-4. A lower bound on the base height of elevated ducts, h

b(90%) in meters above the surface.

For 90% of the elevated ducts, the expected height of their base, h

b, would exceed the

indicated values.
+::>

w

Figure B-5. An upper bound on the optimum coupling elevation, ho(lO%) in meters above the surface.

For all but 10% of elevated ducts, the expected h

o

would not exceed the indicated values.
.j:::o

.j:::o

Figure B-6. A lower bound on the optimum coupling elevation, h (90%) in meters above the surface.

o

90% of elevated ducts, the expected h would exceed the indicated values.

o

For
.j:::>

U1

Figure B-7. An upper bound on the elevation at the top of the ducts, ha(lO%) in meters above the surface.

Only for 10% of the ducts would the expected h exceed the indicated values.

a
+:>

(j)

t

/

I ! 40(./ ,&

I li~ 7- . c:::::::. 500 <;)

o /

• lin I t::/

<;)

Q.

Figure B-8. A lower bound on the elevation at the top of a duct, h

a(90%) in meters above the surface.

For 90% of elevated ducts, the h

a would exceed the indicated values.
APPENDIX C: SCHEMATIC REPRESENTATIONS OF SOME METEOROLOGICAL CONDITIONS

FAVORABLE FOR ANOMALOUS RADIO PROPAGATION

H.T. Dougherty, R.E. McGavin,* and B.A. Hart**

This appendix categorizes for the telecommunications system design engineer,

some of the meteorological conditions associated with the atmospheric refractivity

(N) layers that are favorable for anomalous radio wave propogation. These layers may

be categorized interm$ of their position (surface or elevated), their refractivity

gradients (subrefractive, superrefractive), and their causative physical processes

(advection, evaporation, etc.). These layers are exemplified by simplified plots

(straight-line segments) of their refractivity profiles (N versus elevation h), or their

associated temperature (T in °C), or relative humidity (RH in %), profiles (i.e., T and

RH versus elevation h above the surface). The geographic, synoptic, and generalized

surface conditions associated with the occurrence of each type of layer are described

qualitatively. In some cases, specific locations are identified as examples.

The layer categorizations are summarized in four charts: Chart I describes surface superrefractive layers (6N/6h < -100 N units/km); Chart II depicts surface

subrefractive layers (6N/6h > 0); Chart III treats elevated superrefractive layers;

and Chart IV describes elevated subrefractive layers. When the Chart I layers have

sufficiently superrefractive gradients (i.e., ducting gradients where 6N/6h < -157

N units/km), the surface layer also constitutes a surface radio duct. Elevated

refractivity layers with ducting gradients may constitute either elevated or groundbased ducts (See Figure 7 of the text).

* U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic And Atmospheric Administration,

Weather Modification Program Office, Boulder, CO 80303

** U.S. Department of Commerce, National Telecommunications And Information

Administration, Office of Policy Analysis And Development, BOulder, CO 80303

47
SOME METEOROLOGICAL CONDITIONS FAVORABLE FOR ANOMALOUS RADIO PROPAGATION

Chart I Surface Superrefractive Layers (6N/6h < -100 N-units/km)

CAUSATIVE PROCESS DESCRIPTION OCCURRENCE

N-Profile T-Profile RH-Profile

, ADVECTION

(1) Over large bodies 01 water such as lakes, bays,

Horizontal motion 01 wann dry air

~100l #.",. 1 gulls and saas; partlcular1y along desert coastal

aerosa a cool moist sur1ace (sea regions (e.g., In the Mediterranean and Red seas, the

or moist ground). .. t>(\ Gull of Arabia or In the English Channel dur1ng

The warmer and drier the air, the .§. 100 . ~~ aummera). The layers have been obsarved to extend up

stronger the gradient .s::

..........,:::~ to 70 meters above the saa surface and out to 20 km

lrom the shore.

310 330 cool sea la 15 20 40 80 (2) Over cool Irrigated valleys, below hoi dry

N-Units TlDC) "IoRH mountain slopes, just alter sunset

I QUASt-ADVECTION

·l~ JJ Horizontal molion of cool air (1) Over the poleward portions 01 temperale-zone

across a wann moist sur1ace (sea 60 .L saas In the winter (e.g, the North Atlantlc~

or moist ground). .§. ¢&99T:cfJC

(2) Over mOist land areas near the tropics. (e.g.,

The stronger the wind, the .s:: 20 Florida) dur1ng early winter.

stronger the gradient (3) In temperate-zones lollowlng a cold lront ..............., .. ",..... , passage.

370 380 warm sea 25 30 60 80 100

N-Units nDC) "IoRH

: ElfAPORATION

100~ lJ Evaporation lrom wet 'surfaces k J (1) Over land In moist tropical regl0n8,partlcular1y

with vegetallon and lollage cover and more commonly

(sea or moist ground) to air at the In the daytime.

same or higher temperatures. ,I." I'A, I~ (2) Over the saa when the air Is as wann as or

The less the wind speed, the 11111,,1/11 III,', ,1 warmer than the saa and In the abaance 01 slrong 111 1,,11//1111/1 /1, IllIiI stronger the gradient The warmer jlll/'!('.'!I,1,1,IJ!'.':il,li!I(i.l: winds.

the air, the weaker the gradient (3) Over the sea In the lradewlnd regions as a "sam~ 380 400 sea 25 30 60 80100 perrnanenf' layer axtendlng up to 6 to 20 meters. N-Units TIDC) "IoRH

I FRONTAL WEATHER PROCESSES li 1J The advance of cool air along the 100 warm 1 sur1ace, lilting a stable wann air

masa. ~dry Over land In the near vicinity 01 the lront (the .§. 50 junction of the two air massas at the aurface)

.s:: ~~air

310 320 330 ' \ ,,~,,~'"

15 20 40 60 80

N-Units weather front TIDC) "IoRH

; RADIATION

100~ Clear akles and Ilghl surface winds, at night, nl8ult

The radiation 01 heat lrom the )100 U~( In considerable cooling of the earth causing the

lormatlon 01 a temperature Inversion (an Increase of warmer ground 10 the colcIer sky. temperature with height)

01 major Importance In the polar regions and dur1ng

the winter altemperale lallludes where solar heating

Is conllned to a limited surface depth. Probably

290 300 310 offI'iFJllM.4<V"",,,&~ 10 15 20 20 40 60 unusual In tropical regions or In humid regions dur1ng

N-Units TIDC) %RH the summer.

E

C

D

B

A

,.J::>

OJ
SOME METEOROLOGICAL CONDITIONS FAVORABLE FOR ANOMALOUS RADIO PROPAGATION

Chart:n: Surface Subrefractive Layers (~/6.h > 0 N-units/km)

CAUSATIVE PROCESS DESCRIPTION OCCURRENCE

N-Profile T-Profile RH-Profile

• ADVECTION J Horizontal motion 01 cool moist i'ld ~mo;";;i .. across a drt hot surface.

E 100 Over land In coastal regions, during the summer at

tamperate latitudes. On the eastam coasts In the

lredewlnd regions.

o 300 310 320 "h~:d~ 15T(!~1 20 40 60

N-Units ground %RH

FRONTAL WEATHEA PROCESSES U J The advance 01 cool drt air along J a wann moist surface, Uttlng a -;;; worm

wann moist air mesa. 100 moist.

Q; Over land, with passage of a front so thet wann olr

~o c~ moist air overlies cool air.

330 340 350 worm moist t: 15 20 40 6080

N- Units ground front TIOC) %RH

: AUTO CONVECTION

The convectlon of heat from an 'lL cool air

extremely hot surface. Due to

100 • -------------- Over land. Encountered In the summer for any

cooler air lying above a hot desert or sem~arld region (e.g. , the Interior of

surface (surface temperatu_ In Australia, North Africa, the Middle East, the Cssplan

excess of 3O'C due to safar E • Sea region and parts of southwestern U.S. >.

heaUng) a temperature Iapae This Is rare In winter In the temperate zones.

axlsts far In excesa of the o 210 280 290 fl&JlSf)hJWiMf)*,GBJ;n:.v4Jl''i' 35 40 o 2040 edIabltlc temperature lapse rata. N-Units hot dry ground TloCI O%RH

I CONDUCTION :U '\" h~Ho. 1JJ The eflect of safar heaUng of a -;;;

surface and the heaUng ...,

~~ Over land on sunny days during the wann part of (conduction) 01 air near the Q;

surface ts to cause a sharp E the day. This surface boundary layer can occur In any

1ncnNI.. In 8lr tamperature In the - climate and Is especially common In tropical desarts

immediate vicinity 01 the surface. and sern~arld climates.

o 330 335 25 28 204080

N-Units ground TloCI %RH

Procell undellned but the eflect

-200~ 1 Ie a etrang elevated . -245 N-Units/km

auperrefractlve layer <",aclent E 100 ? Over land. Has been observed In the temperate

leas than -157 N-Uri\lI/km) lying zones. May occur due to the Intrusion of moist air Into

above a eubrefractlve layer. - +180 . a dry air ma.. close to the surface of the ground.

340 350 360 310 A Q ( , • A"-" 20 25 60 80 100

N-Units ground TloCI %RH

E

D

C

B

A

-l==>
SOME METEOROLOGICAL CONDITIONS FAVORABLE FOR ANOMALOUS RADIO PROPAGATION

Chart mElevated Superfractive Layers (AN/A h < -100 N-Units/km)

CAUSATIVE PROCESS DESCRIPTION OCCURRENCE

<)9j~f]§2~ir

~€t3!f.~ inverSion I~"1 .• , ..... '........ I I

20 25 40 60 80

T(OC) %RH

T-Profile RH-Profile

COOL DRY INTRUSION

A tongue of cool dry air Intruding Into a warm moist

air mass results In the combination of a subrefractlve

layer positioned above a superrefractlve layer.

Observed mainly over land In the temperate zone.

Fairly common.

WARM DRY INTRUSION

A tongue of wann dry air Intruding Into a cooler moist

air mass produces the same sub/super N profile.

Common In tropical and subtroplc araas.

WARM MOIST INTRUSION

A tongue of wann molat air Intruding Into a cool dry

air mass results In the combination of a

superrefractlve layer positioned above a subrefractlve

layer. Observed mainly over land In the temperate

zone. Fairly common occurance.

COOL MOIST INTRUSION

A tongue of cool moist air Intruding Into wann dry

air produces a similar super/sub type of N profile.

Uncommon except possibly In some wann desert

araas near cold water coasta.

Over land and weter near the coast,the subsidence

of the dry land air over moist sea air may occur.

Daytime solar heating of land surfaces causes a rising

of wann dry air near the land and a horizontal motion

of moist air from sea to land (sea breeze).

Over water roughly between 5' and 25' North and

South latitude, elevated layers occur which ant known

as the Tradewlnd Inversion. These are due to

subsidence of dry air from high altitudes which

- ~ubsldes over moist cool air over the sea.

Over land, the subsidence can occur due to a large

slow moving high pressure system associated with the

aflll'8-mentloned over-water highs.

40

J

6080

%RH

~~10 15 40 60

T(°C) %RH

16

i~20 40 60 80

T(OC) %RH

L--..l

10 15

T(OC)

cool dry

....

~r

worm moist

1i.l\~)I1t.fSV.rIl\\4¥EfIISk1

ground

worm moist

..~­

worm mOlst-'

.."9.Jr;.,,y.'--

cool dry

~~,.. land sea

j;r.dryair '\

.d~y ~stoir 'olr'_

", ~~toir ..........

O@HX.\v)\w;JS')l

~;nd

270 280 290 300

N-Units

]

]180J~ 1600

s:. 1400 I

N-Profile

2~b !""

100

260 270 280 290

N-Units

!

-"b""

260 280 300 320

N-Units

~1"t2 ! 1600

E

-

s:.

250 260 270

N-Units

Horizontal motion of dry air over

moist air.

BI SIJBSI)ENCE

The flow of air from a high

pressunt cell such that hot, dry

air flows out (subsiding) over cool

moist air.

AI ADVECTION

CI ADVECTIVE INTRUSION

The horizontal motion of alr.such

that one air mass Intrudes Into

another, can produce multiple

elevatad layers.

01

o
SOME METEOROLOGICAL CONDITIONS FAVORABLE FOR ANOMALOUS RADIO PROPAGATION

Chart nz: Elevated Subrefractive Layers (~N/~h >0 N-Units/km)

CAUSATIVE PROCESS DESCRIPTION OCCURRENCE

N-Profile T-Profile RH-Profile

ADVECTION -

100 \ (-

en

Horizontal motion of cool moist ...Q)

100 . -4o.o[;"g;.LDfr - air across a warm dry surface. -Q) Over land, the horizontal motion of cool moist air

E over warm dry land (e.g. a sea breeze)

-

oJ:.

worm dry air I

I

290 300 310 320 ~i>4.\'Hk-~ 15 20 20 40 60

N-Units ground T(°Cl %RH

, FRONTAL WEAnER PROCESS -

( (: The advance of cool air along a 1000

surface, lifting warm moist air Qi 900 Over land, after passage of a cold front, so that

(cold front). ! 800 ~Oir warm moist air overlays cool air.

oJ:. The layers occur up to 50 km behind the front.

cool. a.r·. ,.,,:') I at altitudes of 1000 km.

I I I I

,

280 290 300 ground 10 15 40 60 80

N-Units T(°Cl %RH

; REsDJAL PROCESS -

.>

\ I en Over land In the early evening following the ... 200- - The effects of changes In surface Q) daytine formation of auto-convectlve layers,

temperlltures upon previously 4i .;."~i'~:"{'."".' ...' there Is a radiation of heat from gr()lRj to clear cool

developed surface layer. E

I. sky and to the moisture trapped above the surface.

- 100- oJ:. -

I I Over land In the early morning, following a nlghUIm.

formation of a radiation layer. Solar heating raises the

290 300 1fI!fW/J(\(S)JG«;»k<v.:.:g;;w;:vJ.l!)1! 25 30 20 40 60 surface temperature to produce the same elevated

N-Units ground T(°Cl %RH subrefractlve N profile.

B

A

c

Ul

---'
A

c

d

d

o

dn/dh

dN/dh

dM/dh

D

E(p)

g

G

h

APPENDIX D: LIST OF SYMBOLS

general term for excess propagation losses within a duct, in decibels;

see (8).

the aperture-media coupling loss in decibels, see (10).

constant of proportionality, see page 30.

path length from transmitting site to receiving site in kilometers.

that portion of a path length, less than d, that lies immersed within

a duct.

the vertical refractive index gradient in n units/km, see (lb).

the vertical refractivity gradient in N units/km, see (lb).

the vertical modified-refractivity gradient in Munits/km, see (2b).

duct thickness in meters, see (4), or (6), and (A7).

the field exceeded for p percent of the time, see (18).

the free-space field, see (18).

the radio transmission frequency in gigahertz, see (8), and (9).

the minimum trapping frequency in gigahertz, see (7);

the frequency is expressed in megahertz in Figures 11, B-1, and B-2.

the vertical refractivity gradient across an atmospheric layer in

N units/km, see (A3).

the vertical modified refractivity gradient across an atmospheric

layer in Munits per meter, Munits/m; see (A3).

the modified refractivity gradient of the ducting layer in Munits/m,

see (A7).

the modified refractivity gradient of the non-ducting layer in M

uni ts/m, see (A7) .

the elevation in meters above some reference elevation level.

the elevation in meters of the top of a ducting layer, see Figure 7.

the elevation in meters of the base of an atmospheric duct, see

Figure 7.

the elevation in meters of the base of a ducting layer, see Figure 7.

the basic transmission loss in decibels, see (8).

the free-space basic transmission loss in decibels, see (9).

52
M(h)

N

N(h)

n(h)

p

Q(x)

R

T

x

x

y

y

8h

8M

the modified-refractivity profile, see (20).

the refractivity profile, see (la).

the refractivity profile, see (la).

the refractive-index profile, see (la).

the percent of the time.

a factor in determining distance and elevation along a wave trajectory,

see (All) through (A14).

the subscript to identify receiving terminal parameters, see (14).

the effective earth radius.

the true earth radius, Ro = 6370 km.

the relative humidity in percent.

the subscript to identify transmitting terminal parameters, see (14).

the temperature in degrees centigrade.

the distance along a reference elevation level in kilometers, see (Al).

the distance at which a trajectory has a zero elevation angle, see (A8).

the maximum distance segment over which an arching (trapped)

trajectory will remain within a layer of the duct, the chord length;

see (A16).

the elevation in meters of a trajectory above a ducting layer base,

see Figure 7.

the peak elevation of a trajectory within a ducting layer, see (A9).

the minimum elevation of a trapped trajectory eithin a duct, see (A15).

the layer thickness measured in rad~o wave 1engths.

the ducting layer thickness in meters, see (A6), or (A7).

the modified refractivity change through an atmospheric layer in M

units/m, see (A5), or (A6).

a modified refractivity change used as a reference.

a measure of terrain irregularity; the central 10% to 90% range of

elevations in meters for the central 90% of the terrain profile

between a transmitting and receiving site.

a propagation loss coefficient in dB/km for a duct, see

53
p

8

8

o

the reflection coefficient for an elevated layer.

the local elevation angle of a wave trajectory, usually in

milliradians; see (A2).

the initial elevation angle of a trajectory in milliradians,

see CAl).

the initial elevation angle of a trajectory which has a zero A A A

elevation angle at the elevation y and the distance x; 8

0 = 8c

the critical initial elevation angle for a duct, see (A5).

the antenna half-power beam width in milliradians, see (10),

directed along a duct; it may represent a side10be.

54
FORM NTIA-29 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

(4-80) NAT'L. TELECOMMUNICATIONS AND INFORMATION ADMINISTRATION

BIBLIOGRAPHIC DATA SHEET

1. PUBLICATION NO. 2. Gov't Accession No. 3. Recipient's Accession No.

NTIA Report 81-69

4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE 5. Publication Date

The Role of Elevated Ducting on Radio Service March 1981

and Interference Fields 6. Performing Organization Code

NTIA/ITS

7. AUTHOR(S) 9. ProjecVTask/Work Unit No.

H. T. Dougherty and E. J. Dutton

8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS

U. S. Department of Commerce

National Telecommunications and Information Administrati ,~

Institute for Telecommunication Sciences '\0. ContracVGrant No.

Boulder, Colorado 80303

11. Sponsoring Organization Name and Address 12. Type of Report and Period Covered

SAME

13.

14. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES

15. ABSTRACT (A 200-word or less factual summary of most significant information. If document includes a significant bibliography or literature

survey, mentIOn It here.) This report categorizes the manner in which atmospheric stratification can complicate the problems of frequency allocation and radio regulation by inhibiting

service fields and enhancing interference fields. For the United States and its

border regions, preliminary contour maps are presented for those parameters

associated with the atmospheric layering (ducts) conducive to the propagation of

unusually strong UHF and SHF fields over extremely long distances. The parameters

of interest are: the percent occurrence of elevated ducts, a minimum trapping

frequency, the modified refractivity lapse, the ducting-layer base height, the

duct-base height, and the duct-top height. The role of these duct parameters in

the prediction of potential interference fields is detailed by engineering formulas

and illustrated by numerical examples. These predictions of duct characteristics

from historical (radiosonde) data are necessari ly prel iminary because of present

inadequacies of the data sample. Approaches for improving estimates of duct

parameters are described. Appendices detail expressions for duct trajectories and ~~~ .'.c.J _ .... _L.~. ___ .j. .~<'+~,...<'

''tl5':li<eyVlords (,t1'lph'a'b'etJcal oraer, separated Dy semicolons)

anomalous propagation; atmospheric ducts, 1ayers, or stratification; ducting;

interference fields; ray trajectories; SHF; UHF

17. AVAILABILITY STATEMENT 18. Security Class. (This report) 20. Number of pages

i] UNLIMITED. Uncl assifi ed 55

19. Security Class. (This page) 21. Price:

D FOR OFFICIAL DISTRIBUTION.

Unclassified

'* u.s. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 1981 - 777-()61/3022 Region No. B