# Wireless Channel Models for Over-the-Sea Communication: A Comparative Study
## 5 Comparison of the Channel Models
Additionally, it can be observed that the transmitting power level of the antenna lies between 23 to 30 dBm. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Channel Model** & **Used Frequency** & **Outstanding Features** & **Advantages** & **Limitations** \\ \hline Channel fading margin & & \(\bullet\) Detailed analysis of the effects of both slow fading and fast fading. & \(\bullet\) Consideration of both line-of-sight (LoS) and nLoS. & \(\bullet\) Fading margin is calculated both for short (50 km) and long distances (100 km). & \(\bullet\) Fading compared with channel models \\ \hline Over-the-sea radio links of Malaysian shore using evaporation duct [15] & 1.7–25 GHz & 1.7–25 GHz & \(\bullet\) Supports over-the-sea bLoS communication links. & \(\bullet\) Experimental results were obtained for a wide range of frequencies (2.4, 5.8, 10.5, and transceiver platforms. & \(\bullet\) Important parameters like mean excess delay, RMS \\ \hline High-capacity and long-range microwave over-the-sea link propagation duct [16] & 10.6 GHz & \(\bullet\) Supports ad hoc sensor network applications. & \(\bullet\) Real life implementation of wave propagation mechanism using evaporation duct from sea to mainland. & \(\bullet\) No consideration for channel fading. \\ \hline Multipath delay profile and Doppler spread of millimeter radio waves [17] & 35 and 94 GHz & \(\bullet\) Supports the data rate requirements for 5G. & \(\bullet\) High rate for data transmission. & \(\bullet\) Propagation loss equation was not assumed or formulated. \\  & & & \(\bullet\) Uses millimeter wave. & \(\bullet\) Localized LoS \\  & & & \(\bullet\) Implementible with multi-input multi-output & \(\bullet\) Causal by the mobility of the transceiver platform. & \(\bullet\) No consideration for channel fading. \\  & & & \(\bullet\) Applise the ray tracing method. & \(\bullet\) Transmission of heavy & \(\bullet\) Delay spread is not considered as a channel evaluation parameter. \\  & & & & \(\bullet\) Suppression the data rate requirements for 5G. & \(\bullet\) Programation loss equation was not assumed or formulated. \\  & & & & \(\bullet\) Unse millimeter wave. & \(\bullet\) Localized LoS \\  & & & \(\bullet\) Implementible with multi-input multi-output & \(\bullet\) Causal by the mobility of the transceiver platform. & \(\bullet\) Nolands are huge barriers of wave propagation. No consideration of bLoS links \\ Ray-tracing-based wireless channel modeling for over-the-sea communication near & 2.5 GHz & \(\bullet\) Applies the ray tracing method. & \(\bullet\) 3-D simulation of the sea environment. & \(\bullet\) Used or more than \(\bullet\) A simple model of wave propagation. No consideration of bLoS links \\  & & & \(\bullet\) The transceiver platforms can be set into hot air & \(\bullet\) High rate for data transmission. & \(\bullet\) Atmospheric duct height effects were ignored. \\  & & & & \(\bullet\) Fading characteristics of the channel were not explored. \\  & & & & \\  & & & & \\  & & & & \\  & & & & \\  & & & & \\  & & & \\  & & & & \\  & & & & \\  & & & & \\ \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 1: _Cont._  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c} \hline \hline