1
Signal strength variations at 2 GHz for three sea paths in the British Channel Islands:
2
detailed discussion and propagation modelling
3
4
S.D. Gunashekar1, E.M. Warrington1, D.R. Siddle1 and P. Valtr2
5
6
1
Department of Engineering, University of Leicester, Leicester, LE1 7RH, UK.
7
2
Department of Electromagnetic Field, Czech Technical University in Prague, Technická 2, 166 27
8
Prague 6, Czech Republic
9
10
11
Abstract
12
Signal strength measurements at 2 GHz have recently been made on three over-sea paths in the
13
British Channel This paper focuses on explaining the propagation characteristics during periods of
14
normal reception and periods of enhanced signal strength with particular emphasis on a 48.5 km
15
transhorizon path between Jersey and Alderney path. Evaporation ducting and diffraction appear to
16
be the dominant propagation mechanisms at most times. The influence of the evaporation duct
17
during periods of normal propagation has been confirmed by modelling the over-sea propagation
18
conditions using Paulus-Jeske evaporation duct refractivity profiles as input to the parabolic
19
equation method. During periods of enhanced propagation, which occur approximately 8% of the
20
time on the longest path (48.5 km), the presence of additional higher-level ducting/super-refractive
21
structures has been verified and their influence has been modelled with reasonable success.
22
23
1. Introduction
24
Signal strength measurements at 2 GHz have recently been made on three over-sea paths in the
25
British Channel Islands (see Table 1 for transmitter and receiver locations). A summary of these
26
measurements are presented in the companion to this paper [Siddle et al., 2007], together with a
27
statistical analysis of the received signal strength variations and a comparison with predicted values
28
made using current ITU-R Recommendations. The antenna heights were such that the ends of the
29
two longest links were beyond the optical horizon, and for the shortest link the ends were within the
30
optical horizon for most of the time. A large tidal range is prevalent in the Channel Islands (up to
31
10 m in Guernsey on a spring tide), and consequently the obscuration due to the bulge of the earth
32
varies significantly within the tidal cycle.
33
In order to correlate the varying signal strengths with different weather processes, meteorological
34
data were obtained from a number of sites around the Channel Islands (see Table 2). Hourly, sea-
35
level meteorological data were available from the Channel Light Vessel (CLV) anchored in the
36
English Channel to the northwest of all three radio paths. The distance of the CLV to the midpoint
37
of the Jersey-Alderney link is approximately 70 km, and the nominal height at which observations
38
are made at this station is 5.0 m above mean sea level. Higher altitude weather data were obtained
39
from the airports on Jersey, Alderney and Guernsey with heights of 84.0, 88.7, and 102.0 metres
40
above mean sea level respectively. Data from the Maison St. Louis Observatory in St. Helier,
41
Jersey (54.0 m above mean sea level) and from a privately owned weather station in La petit Val,
42
Alderney (10.7 m above mean sea level) were also employed.
43
This paper focuses on explaining the propagation characteristics during periods of normal reception
44
and periods of enhanced signal strength (ESS) with particular emphasis on the 48.5 km transhorizon
45
Jersey to Alderney path (signal strengths that exceed a threshold calculated assuming free space
46
loss along the path are classified as enhanced signals).
47
2. Signal Strength Variations and the Estimated Evaporation Duct Height
48
The correlation between the computed Paulus-Jeske (P-J) evaporation duct heights [Paulus, 1985]
49
and the corresponding hourly signal strengths measured at the Alderney high antenna is shown in
50
Figure 1 together with the ESS threshold and diffraction threshold (assuming mean antenna heights
-1-
51
above sea level for the upper antennas) calculated assuming standard atmospheric conditions.
52
Hourly measurements of air temperature, sea temperature, relative humidity and wind speed made
53
at the CLV were employed in calculating the duct heights according to the P-J formulation. Ideally,
54
the meteorological measurements would have been made close to the midpoint of the propagation
55
paths, however such data were not available and the CLV was the closest available source. Since
56
the CLV was somewhat displaced from the paths of interest, horizontal homogeneity was (by
57
necessity) assumed.
58
To illustrate the effect of the tide, the data have been divided into four parts: cases when the tide
59
height (assumed to be the average of the heights at Jersey and Alderney) between the transmitter
60
and receiver is less than -2 m relative to its mean value, cases when the tide height lies between -
61
2 m and 0 m, cases when the tide height lies between 0 m and 2 m, and cases when the tide height
62
between the transmitter and receiver exceeds 2 m. Best-fit lines for each tidal range are also
63
indicated in the figure. The majority of the data lie between the free space and diffraction threshold
64
values indicating that the evaporation duct is able to increase the received signal strength at
65
Alderney well beyond the diffraction level. However, the enhancement in signal strength provided
66
by the evaporation duct is not sufficient to exceed the free space threshold. Additionally, the
67
distribution of data corroborates the observation made in the companion paper [Siddle et al., 2007]
68
that during periods of normal reception, stronger signals are received when tide heights are low and
69
vice versa.
70
At most times during periods of non-ESS, the measured signal strengths increase with duct height,
71
an observation consistent with reports made by various authors [SPAWAR, 2004; Hitney et al.,
72
1985; Hitney and Veith, 1990]. Considering only the non-ESS data, the signal strength at the
73
Alderney high antenna increases at the rate of 0.61 dB per metre increase in duct height. For the
74
Guernsey and Sark high antennas, the corresponding values are 0.59 dB/m and 0.25 dB/m
75
respectively.
-2-
76
For the cases of ESS, there is no definite correlation between measured signal strength and
77
calculated evaporation duct height, suggesting either the existence of additional propagation
78
mechanism(s) during these periods, or that under these conditions the estimate of the duct height is
79
incorrect. The inverse relationship between tide height and signal strength is no longer evident, and
80
in general the calculated evaporation duct heights during periods of ESS appear to be less than the
81
duct heights during periods of normal reception (for all valid data, the mean of the P-J evaporation
82
duct height is 8.3 m, reducing to 6.0 m for times when ESS signals are observed at Alderney).
83
It is important to note that the P-J method of estimating evaporation duct heights is an open ocean
84
model [Paulus, 1985; Hitney and Veith, 1990; Babin et al, 1997] that works reasonably well for
85
conditions of atmospheric instability (mostly prevalent in the open ocean) where the air is colder
86
than the sea. During stable periods, when the air temperature exceeds the sea temperature, the P-J
87
method incorporates a temperature correction (on the assumption that an error has been made
88
during measurement) that results in an under-estimation of the evaporation duct height [Paulus,
89
1985]. Whilst it may be true that stable conditions are uncommon in the open ocean [Paulus, 1985;
90
Babin et al, 1997], it is likely that these will occur more often in coastal regions that are particularly
91
prone to land-induced effects such as advection of warm air over a cooler sea surface. This is
92
another reason for the departure from the general trend of higher duct heights corresponding to
93
higher signal strengths during periods of ESS (Figure 1), as these occur primarily when stable
94
atmospheric conditions are prevalent.
95
3. Modeling Periods of Normal Reception with the Parabolic Wave Equation Method
96
With the advent of powerful computers, the computationally intensive parabolic equation (PE)
97
method [Dockery, 1988; Craig and Levy, 1991; Barrios, 1994; Levy, 2000] has become an efficient
98
and practical tool for tropospheric radiowave propagation calculations (see, for example, studies of
99
the effects of tropospheric ducting on the performance of UHF radio links presented by Slingsby
100
[2001] and Sirkova and Mikhalev [2004]). In this section, the propagation conditions during
-3-
101
periods of normal reception in the Channel Islands have been modelled using the PE method. In
102
particular, the split-step parabolic wave equation [Dockery, 1988; Kuttler and Dockery, 1991] that
103
implements impedance-boundary conditions [Dockery and Kuttler, 1996] was utilised for field
104
strength calculations. Predictions for short periods of time (in summer and winter) were also made
105
using the radiowave propagation assessment tool, AREPS [SPAWAR, 2004] that makes use of a
106
hybrid model incorporating the split-step PE method as a sub-model [SPAWAR, 2004]. The results
107
for a few weeks of test cases indicate that the propagation loss values calculated with the PE
108
method and with AREPS are within 1-2 dB of each other.
109
Modified refractivity profiles based on the Paulus-Jeske method [Paulus, 1985] were generated for
110
each hourly reading and utilised as inputs to the PE model. A typical modified refractivity-height
111
profile (for 7 December 2003 at 18:00 UT) illustrating the presence of an evaporation duct is shown
112
in Figure 2 (left frame). For this particular case (air temperature: 7.8°C, sea temperature: 12.9°C,
113
dew point temperature: 2.6°C and wind speed: 14.3 m/s), the evaporation duct height is 14.7 m
114
while the transmitter and receiver heights above sea level are 13.8 m and 11.1 m respectively. For
115
the purpose of illustration, also shown in Figure 2 (right frame) is the height vs. range ray-trace plot
116
for the evaporation duct profile and transmitter specified above (produced in AREPS [SPAWAR,
117
2004]). Trapping of some of the direct and reflected rays between the earth’s surface and the top of
118
the evaporation duct at 14.7 m is evident and consequently propagation occurs for extended ranges
119
within the trapping layer. There is good agreement between the measured signal strength of
120
-86.6 dBm and the predicted signal strength of -88.1 dBm.
121
3.1 Illustrative Examples
122
During a distinctive cold weather period (4-10 December 2003) when normal reception occurs,
123
there is very good agreement between the measured and the PE-predicted signal strengths at the
124
Alderney high antenna (Figure 3). This behaviour was also apparent for the Guernsey and Sark
125
measurements, and for both the high and low antennas. In contrast, for a typical period of signal
-4-
126
enhancement during late summer (12-18 September 2003), there is little correlation between the
127
observations and the PE-predicted values (Figure 4). The predicted signal strengths in this case
128
simply indicate the regular oscillation in received power caused by the tides.
129
3.2 Analysis with Complete Signal Strength Data Set
130
A scatter plot of the measured signal strengths and the PE-predicted signal strengths for all the valid
131
hourly data at the Alderney high antenna is shown in Figure 5 (left frame). The overall correlation
132
for these of data is poor (correlation coefficient = 0.17), however there appears to be a definite
133
correlation between the observed and predicted signal strengths particularly for cases of normal
134
reception. A clearer depiction of this correlation can be seen in the right frame of Figure 5 in which
135
all cases of enhanced signal strength have been removed. The correlation coefficient for these data
136
is 0.45.
137
Every tropospheric duct has a maximum wavelength that it can support, depending upon the
138
geometry and the change in refractivity across the duct. The maximum cut-off wavelength, λmax,
139
provides a general indication of the radio-wave trapping capability of a duct, and is given in
140
Equation 1 [Turton et al, 1988; Brooks et al, 1999].
λ
141
max
=
2
k t δM
3
(1)
142
where t is the duct thickness (m), δM the modified refractivity change across the duct (M-units),
143
and k = 3.77 x 10-3 for a surface-based duct or 5.66 x 10-3 for an elevated duct.
144
It is noteworthy that when only those cases of non-enhanced signal strengths are used in which the
145
corresponding evaporation duct cut-off wavelengths exceed 15 cm, the correlation coefficient
146
between the PE-predicted and measured signal strengths at the Alderney upper antenna increases to
147
0.66.
-5-
148
Thus, even though the cut-off wavelength is simply a rough indication of the trapping capability of
149
an evaporation duct, it can still be used to show that when the likelihood of 2 GHz radio waves
150
getting trapped within a duct is maximized, the evaporation duct does becomes the dominant
151
propagation phenomenon. (For a detailed discussion of the concept of maximum cut-off wavelength
152
for evaporation ducts, the reader is directed to the works of Hall [1979] and Turton et al [1988].)
153
Finally, it is also interesting to note that when the Paulus-Jeske evaporation profiles are used in the
154
PE model, none of the predicted signal strengths exceed the value of the free space threshold.
155
Further evidence of the correspondence between the measured and PE-predicted signal strengths
156
can be obtained from Figures 6 and 7. The cumulative frequency distribution curves for three sets of
157
data with reference to the Alderney high antenna are shown in Figure 6. These data sets are (a) all
158
measured signal strength, (b) only non-enhanced measured signal strength and (c) PE-predicted
159
signal strength (using P-J evaporation duct profiles). The mean hourly signal strengths for the two
160
years of data (for the same three signal strength data sets) are presented in Figure 7. In both figures,
161
the change in shape of the distributions for that of all measured data and for just non-enhanced
162
signal strength data is very significant. The PE-predicted signals provide a much-improved estimate
163
of the measured signal strengths during periods of normal reception.
164
Given that only the effect of the evaporation duct has been accounted for in these cases, this
165
suggests that (a) the evaporation duct is responsible for propagation during periods of normal
166
reception (i.e. cold weather periods) and (b) the evaporation duct refractivity profiles assumed
167
within the PE predictions during periods of enhanced reception are insufficient to model the
168
propagation, at least as it impacts on our paths/antenna heights. The latter conclusion points towards
169
the existence of propagation mechanism(s) other than the evaporation duct which are responsible
170
for the occurrence of enhanced signal strengths and that are not being taken into account in the
171
prediction scheme.
-6-
172
173
4. Explanation of Enhancements Using Meteorological Data from Higher Levels in the
Troposphere
174
4.1 Estimation of Refractivity Lapse Rate
175
Hourly weather data from the meteorological stations listed in Table 2 were closely analysed in
176
order to corroborate the existence of higher-level ducting/super-refractive structures during periods
177
of enhanced signal strength. The refractivity lapse rate, dN/dh (in N-units/km), in approximately the
178
first 100 m of the troposphere was estimated for two years of data. This was achieved by finding the
179
slope of the best-fit line through points on the refractivity vs. height plot for hourly data from the
180
various sites noted above. The mean refractivity gradient was calculated to be approximately
181
-71 N-units/km, showing that on average the conditions in the lowest part of troposphere are very
182
close to being super-refractive. It should be noted that a number of conclusions that are arrived at in
183
this section are based on estimations of the refractivity at different locations. Ideally, co-located
184
refractivity measurements at different altitudes midway between the transmitter and receiver path
185
are required.
186
Monthly curves of the mean value of dN/dh between the earth’s surface and a height of 1 km
187
derived from historical radiosonde data are presented in ITU-R Recommendation P.453 [ITU-R,
188
2003]. For the region around the English Channel, this gradient varies between -40 and -50 N-units
189
in the 1 km layer. The departure from these standard values of dN/dh is to be expected since we are
190
dealing with the lowest 100 m of the troposphere in a marine environment. Further statistics in
191
ITU-R Recommendation P.453 indicate that the refractivity gradient in the lowest 100 m above the
192
surface of the earth is less than -100 N-units/km for small percentages of time. Additionally, more
193
recent data extracted from ITU-R databases [ITU-R, 2003] indicates that the refractivity gradient
194
exceeded for 50% of the time in the lowest 65 m of the region is about -55 N-units/km.
195
Of 8340 valid Alderney high antenna signal strength and dN/dh data, 730 (8.8%) correspond to
196
cases of enhanced signal strength. The occurrence statistics of the four types of refractive conditions
-7-
197
(ducting, super-refraction, normal and sub-refraction) and the corresponding percentages of
198
occurrence of enhanced signal strength at the Alderney high antenna are listed in Table 3. The most
199
important result that may be derived from this table is that 664 out of 730 (91%) cases of signal
200
strength enhancements occur during ducting or super-refractive atmospheric conditions, thus
201
underlining the significance of these non-standard modes of propagation in the context of long-
202
range UHF propagation. Also, despite the fact that ducting or super-refraction occurs almost 40%
203
of the time, ESS events are recorded only 8.8% of the time. This would suggest that although
204
ducting and super-refraction are primarily responsible for the occurrence of enhanced signal
205
strengths on transhorizon over-sea paths, they do not necessarily always result in ESS (though the
206
likelihood of ESS reception increases). Nevertheless, these anomalous effects do allow radio signals
207
(enhanced or non-enhanced) to reach distant receivers that under normal atmospheric conditions
208
would not propagate beyond the horizon.
209
As expected, there are very few cases of enhanced signal strengths during periods of sub-refraction.
210
Furthermore, as Figure 8 illustrates, practically all the ducting events occur in the spring and
211
summer months. Thus, by simply utilising the long-term refractivity lapse rate as an indicator, we
212
can get a reasonably clear verification of the different atmospheric conditions encountered in the
213
lowest region of the troposphere during long-range UHF propagation over the sea.
214
4.2 Identification of Potential Higher-Level Trapping Layers in the Troposphere
215
During the spring and summer months, the sea temperature at the CLV is lower than the air
216
temperatures measured at all sites including the CLV, indicative of a stable atmosphere. This
217
confirms that a stable atmosphere correlates well with the occurrence of enhanced signals, and the
218
extent of the stability is not just restricted to the lowest few metres above the surface of the sea. In
219
contrast, during autumn and winter, the average sea temperature well exceeds all the air temperature
220
readings, indicating a highly unstable atmosphere during these periods.
-8-
221
In addition, there are also inversions in modified refractivity taking place (that is, a decrease in M
222
with height instead of the normal increase in M). Inversions in modified refractivity are an
223
indication of potential ducting layers [Hitney et al., 1985]. In particular, these inversions appear to
224
occur between the heights of the Alderney and Guernsey airports during the spring and summer
225
months.
226
In order to identify the reasons for these M-inversions, the monthly occurrence frequency of
227
temperature inversions between Alderney (88.7 m) and Guernsey (102.0 m) and the monthly
228
average of the relative humidity difference between these two heights are shown in the top and
229
bottom frames, respectively of Figure 9. The former parameter has been quantified by determining
230
the rate of incidence of the temperature at the Guernsey Airport altitude exceeding the temperature
231
at the Alderney Airport altitude by more than 1ºC. Under normal circumstances, air temperature and
232
water vapour pressure in the troposphere decrease with altitude. However, a temperature inversion
233
and/or rapid lapse rates in the water vapour pressure between two layers of air can result in the
234
occurrence of very high refractivity lapse rates (i.e. dN/dh ≤ -157 N-units/km or dM/dh ≤ 0
235
M-units/km). Together, or in isolation, these two effects will result in the occurrence of
236
tropospheric ducting layers.
237
A definite seasonal pattern is evident from both plots. The occurrence frequency of temperature
238
inversions taking place between the heights of the Alderney and Guernsey airports increases
239
substantially during summer and spring (March to August) while reaching a minimum in the
240
autumn and winter months (September to February). The difference in relative humidity also rises
241
during the spring and summer months, indicating a faster-than-normal RH lapse rate between the
242
heights of 88.7 m and 102.0 m. Thus, the plots verify that the two key processes that result in
243
ducting in the troposphere (manifested in M-inversions) are taking place.
244
The monthly percentage occurrence of strong M-inversions between the altitudes of the Alderney
245
and Guernsey airports are presented in the bottom frame of Figure 10; that is, the occurrence
-9-
246
frequency of MGuernsey - MAlderney being less than -5 M-units. This translates to an equivalent
247
refractivity lapse rate of approximately -533 N-units/km, indicating extreme ducting conditions. For
248
comparison, the monthly occurrence frequencies of ESS cases on the Jersey-Alderney radio path
249
(both high and low antennas) are also shown in the top frame of Figure 10. Clearly, both plots
250
follow very similar seasonal patterns with the respective occurrence percentages reaching
251
comparable values.
252
As mentioned previously, during the spring and summer months there is a definite change in the
253
physical properties of the air at higher altitudes relative to that at the surface. The CLV M (5.0 m
254
above mean sea level) is normally well below the value of M at the Jersey Airport (i.e. 84.0 m
255
above mean sea level). Figure 11 shows the number of monthly occurrences of M-inversions
256
between the surface (i.e. the CLV) and the altitude of the Jersey Airport. Specifically, the graph
257
illustrates the number of cases per month when the surface modified refractivity exceeds the
258
modified refractivity at an altitude of 84.0 m. Over the two years of measurement, it is estimated
259
that there are 937 cases of such inversions in modified refractivity, of which approximately 40%
260
coincide with the occurrence of enhanced signal strengths at Alderney. The monthly variation in
261
this figure is very similar to the trend exhibited by the monthly ESS occurrence curve presented in
262
top frame of Figure 10, peaking predominantly in the spring and summer months. Almost 61% of
263
these cases of M-inversions occur in the spring and summer periods. If we include September 2003
264
– a month in which a relatively large number of enhanced signals were recorded – the latter figure
265
increases to 83%. A strong correlation therefore exists between the occurrence of ESS signals and
266
very high lapse rates of refractivity taking place aloft in the troposphere throughout the spring/
267
summer months.
268
Finally, the hourly occurrence frequency of potential trapping layers between the heights of the
269
Guernsey and Alderney airports during periods of enhanced signal strength is depicted in the
270
bottom frame of Figure 12. Once again, for comparison, the diurnal variations in the occurrence of
271
enhanced signals at the Alderney high and low antennas are shown in the top frame (Figure 12). As
-10-
272
with the signal strength, the hourly occurrence frequency of higher-level M-inversions follows the
273
same diurnal trend, with approximately 40% of the inversions occurring between 1500 UT and
274
2000 UT, and comparatively fewer existing in the morning.
275
In the foregoing analysis, due to the lack of meteorological data above an altitude of approximately
276
100 m, the upper limit of these potential ducting layers cannot be specified. Nevertheless, the
277
exceptionally high refractivity lapse rates (resulting in M-inversions) caused by temperature
278
inversions and rapid RH lapse rates between approximately 85.0 m and 100.0 m, provide definitive
279
evidence of the existence of higher-level ducting structures. These higher-altitude ducting layers
280
are most likely resulting in the occurrence of enhanced signal strengths on over-sea UHF paths,
281
primarily during the warm spring and summer periods.
282
4.3 Modeling Periods of Enhanced Signal Strength with the Parabolic Wave Equation Method
283
It has been shown earlier that during periods of normal reception, when the low-level evaporation
284
duct profile was used as input to the parabolic wave equation model, an excellent correlation was
285
achieved between the PE-predicted and measured signal strengths. During periods of enhanced
286
signal strength however, the PE-predictions using the evaporation duct refractivity profile were
287
relatively inaccurate, providing an indication that certain additional higher-level tropospheric
288
phenomena are more dominant at these times. The two preceding sections have focussed on the
289
identification and characterisation of these higher-level ducting/super-refractive layers by utilising
290
refractivity data at different altitudes from nearby weather stations. In this section, an attempt has
291
been made to model the propagation effects during periods of signal strength enhancement, using
292
the limited higher-level refractivity data available to us.
293
Based on the results that have been presented so far indicating the existence of higher-level ducting
294
layers in the troposphere, and in the absence of more detailed meteorological data, refractivity
295
measurements from the various weather stations (listed in Table 2) were combined to provide an
-11-
296
atmospheric profile for the first 100 m to input to the parabolic equation model and AREPS
297
[SPAWAR, 2004].
298
Figure 13 presents a comparative plot of the PE-predicted signal strength and the measured signal
299
strength at the Alderney high antenna for the same period of enhanced signal strength (12-
300
18 September 2003) that was presented in Figure 4. In the case of the higher-level refractivity data
301
simulations (Figure 13), we observe that there is a much better correlation between the measured
302
and predicted signal strengths. Thus, for periods of enhanced signal strength, the correlation
303
between measurements and predictions is better when a higher-level refractivity profile is used than
304
when the low-level evaporation duct profile is used; whereas for periods of normal propagation, the
305
evaporation duct model provides a better correlation.
306
In conclusion it may be said that a seemingly basic scheme that involves the use of refractivity
307
measurements at different altitudes, from sea level up to approximately 100 m, has been applied to
308
the PE-model and AREPS to produce a signal strength profile that agrees reasonably well with the
309
experimental signal strength during phases of enhanced reception. This result provides confirmation
310
of the existence of higher layer ducting stratifications that become dominant (over the low-lying
311
evaporation duct) during periods of ESS propagation over the sea.
312
4.4 Analysis of Upper-Air Radiosonde Data from Nearby Stations
313
Historical as well as current data from nearby radiosonde stations were closely analysed to
314
corroborate the existence of higher-level super-refractive and ducting structures in the English
315
Channel region, particularly when signal strength enhancements are observed at Alderney,
316
Guernsey and Sark.
317
Historical upper-air climatology (contained for example in the AREPS database [SPAWAR, 2004])
318
from nearby radiosonde stations indicate that surface-based ducts and elevated ducts occur
319
reasonably frequently in the region. Camborne (50.22° N, 5.32° W, altitude: 87 m above mean sea
-12-
320
level) and Brest/Guipavas (48.45° N, 4.42° W, altitude: 103 m above mean sea level) are two such
321
coastal stations in the vicinity of the radio paths in the Channel Islands. In particular, it was noted
322
that surface-based ducts occur more frequently in the months of May to September with less
323
ducting taking place in the autumn and winter months. This occurrence trend of surface-based ducts
324
in this region agrees well with the seasonal pattern of enhanced signal strength incidence along the
325
Channel Island radio links under consideration. Furthermore, it is also interesting to note that the
326
average height of the trapping layers producing the surface-based ducts at Camborne are reasonably
327
close to the approximate height at which trapping layers (caused by temperature inversions and
328
rapid humidity lapse rates) were observed in the upper-air data from various sources in the Channel
329
Islands.
330
High-resolution radiosonde data from two nearby stations were closely analysed for two typical
331
months of normal reception (December 2003) and enhanced signal reception (May 2004). Since
332
there are no radiosonde launch-sites located in the Channel Islands, the closest locations from which
333
high-resolution radiosonde data are available to us are Herstmonceux (50.90° N, 0.32° W, altitude:
334
52 m above mean sea level) and Camborne (50.22° N, 5.32° W, altitude: 87 m above mean sea
335
level), both located very close to the southern coast of UK. Measurements are recorded at 2-second
336
intervals, twice a day (at 1100 UT and 2300 UT) and were obtained from the British Atmospheric
337
Data Centre.
338
The air temperature, pressure and relative humidity (obtained from the air and dew point
339
temperatures) radiosonde measurements from Herstmonceux and Camborne were utilised to
340
produce corresponding values of modified refractivity, M. In order to be sure about the upper
341
extent of these potential ducting structures, weather data was analysed up to approximately twenty
342
height readings. Depending on the case being examined, this roughly corresponds to a maximum
343
altitude of 230-270 m for Herstmonceux and 260-300 m for Camborne.
-13-
344
During December 2003 (when there are no cases of ESS), examination of the radiosonde data
345
reveals that practically all the valid cases have monotonically increasing values of M from the
346
surface value. Very few inversions in modified refractivity are observed, and if at all, are limited to
347
the first two readings (i.e. up to a maximum of 60-75 m for Herstmonceux and 90-100 m for
348
Camborne). There are practically no significant temperature inversions taking place aloft.
349
Hourly ESSs occur at the Alderney high antenna 42% of the time in May 2004. During this month,
350
inspection of the modified refractivity height profiles reveals that there are many more inversions in
351
M compared to December 2003. Furthermore, most of these inversions are accompanied by
352
temperature inversions at the same altitude. Some of the times, a rapid decrease in the relative
353
humidity is also observed. This suggests a correlation between the existence of higher-level
354
trapping layers in the troposphere and the occurrence of ESS events along the over-sea radio links
355
under consideration.
356
It should be noted that despite providing reasonable evidence in support of the existence of higher-
357
level trapping and super-refractive structures, the results from the analysis of the high-resolution
358
radiosonde data and the historical upper-air climatology data should be treated with caution: the
359
data that have been studied are from coastal stations that are located some distance away from the
360
over-sea radio paths being investigated; furthermore, since the data are available only twice a day,
361
tangible conclusions about the temporal scope of these higher-level structures cannot be made.
362
Nevertheless, in the absence of more accurate meteorological data, close examination of high-
363
resolution radiosonde data from nearby stations does provide some indication of the strong
364
correlation between the occurrence of enhanced signal strengths and the presence of upper-air
365
super-refractive/ducting structures. Furthermore, the higher-level trapping layers are observed
366
reasonably concurrently at different locations around the English Channel region, which strongly
367
indicates (along with the fact that ESSs are observed concurrently at Alderney, Guernsey and Sark)
368
that these are a widespread phenomenon occurring over a large area.
-14-
369
4.5 Analysis of Synoptic Charts
370
Areas of high pressure are often associated with anticyclonic weather [McIntosh and Thom, 1973;
371
McIlveen, 1986] that, in general, are characterised by settled weather and light wind conditions,
372
both of which have been observed in the context of ESS occurrences in the Channel Islands. Dry
373
air from the upper troposphere descends and is heated, sometimes producing an inversion of
374
temperature. Furthermore, anticyclones usually extend over large regions and are slow-moving
375
phenomena. In order to further investigate this, synoptic charts of the region (acquired from the UK
376
Met Office) were closely analysed to identify any distinctive meteorological processes occurring
377
during periods of sustained ESS events.
378
Of the 119 days on which ESS occur, 50 cases of high-pressure centres were noted to be present
379
directly over the English Channel region, and 41 of these 50 events correspond to days on which
380
ESS cases occurred for four hours or longer. Additionally, it was observed that there are 41 days on
381
which high-pressure centres exist over nearby regions in Europe and in the Atlantic. Thus, of all
382
the days on which ESS occurrences are recorded at Alderney, approximately 91 correspond to days
383
(77%) on which high-pressure cells are observed either directly over or close to the Channel Islands
384
region. It is worth mentioning that the presence of high-pressure cells in the region does not always
385
result in the enhancement of signals. In some cases, there is simply a marginal increase in the
386
received power (but not above the free space threshold), while at other times, the anticyclonic
387
weather does not seem to affect the signal at all.
388
It is evident that anticyclonic weather systems (occurring predominantly in the spring and summer
389
months) are a major contributing factor to the occurrence of enhanced signal strengths on over-sea
390
radio paths in the English Channel. It is most likely that the process of subsidence and
391
accompanying advection associated with anticyclones is resulting in the creation of a layer of air at
392
low altitudes within which an inversion in temperature and a strong humidity gradient exists.
-15-
393
Historical data shows that advection ducts frequently form over the English Channel during the
394
summer [Bean and Dutton, 1966].
395
5. Concluding Remarks
396
This paper describes a series of long-term UHF propagation measurements carried out over three
397
completely over-sea paths in the English Channel ranging from 21.0 km to 48.5 km in length. The
398
measurements and accompanying statistical analyses that have been presented both here and in the
399
companion paper [Siddle et al., 2007] provide a useful addition to the limited statistics related to the
400
low-level propagation of 2 GHz radio waves over long-range sea paths in temperate regions.
401
Evaporation ducting and diffraction appear to be the dominant propagation mechanisms at most
402
times. The influence of the evaporation duct during periods of normal propagation has been
403
confirmed by modelling the over-sea propagation conditions using Paulus-Jeske evaporation duct
404
refractivity profiles (generated using sea surface weather data) as input to the parabolic equation
405
method.
406
Signal strength enhancements have been observed on all three paths subject to investigation,
407
primarily in the late afternoon and evening periods, in the spring and summer months. During
408
periods of enhanced propagation, which occur approximately 8% of the time on the longest path
409
(48.5 km), the presence of additional higher-level ducting/super-refractive structures has been
410
verified and their influence has been modelled with reasonable success. These structures have been
411
characterised by identifying regions of inversions in the estimated modified refractivity profiles and
412
have been shown to be caused by strong lapses of humidity and/or temperature inversions aloft. The
413
higher-level ducting/super-refractive structures follow similar diurnal and seasonal trends as the
414
occurrence of ESS. Finally, analysis of both current and historical data from nearby radiosonde
415
stations also point towards the existence of higher-level trapping structures at comparable altitudes
416
in the region.
-16-
417
Acknowledgements
418
The authors are grateful to Ofcom (formerly the Radiocommunications Agency) for their support of
419
this work, and to Mr. Jon Kay-Mouat (Alderney), St. Peter Port Harbour Authority (Guernsey),
420
Ronez Quarry (Jersey) and Mr. Simon de Carteret (Sark) without whose help, cooperation and
421
agreement it would have been impossible for the measurements to have been made. Additionally,
422
the authors wish to thank Mr. Tim Lillington (Guernsey Airport Meteorological Observatory), Mr.
423
Anthony Pallot (Jersey Airport Meteorological Department) and Mr. Brian Bonnard (Alderney) for
424
providing meteorological data and weather information from the Channel Islands, and Mr. Wayne
425
Patterson (SPAWAR, USA), for his help in using the AREPS software.
426
References
427
Babin, S.M., Young, G.S., and Carton, J.A. (1997), A New Model of the Oceanic Evaporation
428
429
430
431
432
433
434
Duct, Journal of Applied Meteorology, 36(3), 193-204.
Barrios, A.E. (1994), A Terrain Parabolic Equation Model for Propagation in the Troposphere,
IEEE Transactions on Antennas and Propagation, 42(1), 90-98.
Bean, B.R., and E.J. Dutton (1966), Radio Meteorology, U.S. Department of Commerce, National
Bureau of Standards Monograph 92.
Craig, K.H., and M.F. Levy (1991), Parabolic equation modelling of the effects of multipath and
ducting on radar systems, IEE Proceedings – Part F, 138(2), 153-162.
435
Dockery, G.D. (1988), Modeling Electromagnetic Wave Propagation in the Troposphere Using the
436
Parabolic Equation, IEEE Transactions on Antennas and Propagation, 36(10), 1464-1470.
437
Dockery, G.D. and J. R. Kuttler (1996), An Improved-Boundary Algorithm for Fourier Split-Step
438
Solutions of the Parabolic Wave Equation, IEEE Transactions on Antennas and Propagation,
439
44(12), 1592-1599.
440
441
Hall, M.P.M. (1979), Effects of the Troposphere on Radio Communication, Institution of Electrical
Engineers.
-17-
442
443
444
445
446
447
448
Hitney, H.V., J.H. Richter, R.A. Pappert, K.D. Anderson, and G.B. Baumgartner Jr. (1985),
Tropospheric Radio Propagation Assessment, Proceedings of the IEEE, 73(2), 265-283.
Hitney, H.V., and R. Veith (1990), Statistical Assessment of Evaporation Duct Propagation, IEEE
Transactions on Antennas and Propagation, 38(6), 794-799.
ITU-R (2003), ITU-R Recommendation P.453, The radio refractive index: its formula and
refractivity data, International Telecommunication Union.
Kuttler, J.R.,
and
G.D. Dockery
(1991),
Theoretical
description
of
the
parabolic
449
approximation / Fourier split-step method of representing electromagnetic propagation in the
450
troposphere, Radio Science, 26(2), 381-393.
451
452
453
454
455
456
457
458
Levy, M.F. (2000), Parabolic Equation Methods for Electromagnetic Wave Propagation, IEE
Electromagnetic Wave Series 45.
McIlveen. J.F.R. (1986), Basic Meteorology – a physical outline, Van Nostrand Reinhold (UK) Co.
Ltd.
McIntosh, D.H., and A.S. Thom (1973), Essentials of Meteorology, Wykeham Publications
(London) Ltd.
Paulus, R.A. (1985), Practical Application of an Evaporation Duct Model, Radio Science, 20(4),
887-896.
459
Siddle, D.R., E.M. Warrington and S.D. Gunashekar (2007), Signal strength variations at 2 GHz for
460
three sea paths in the British Channel Islands: observations and statistical analysis, Radio
461
Science (ibid).
462
463
464
465
Sirkova, I. and M. Mikhalev (2004), Parabolic-Equation-Based Study of Ducting Effects on
Microwave Propagation, Microwave and Optical Technology Letters, 42(5), 390-394.
Slingsby, P.L. (1991), Modelling Tropospheric Ducting Effects on VHF/UHF Propagation, IEEE
Transactions on Broadcasting, 37(2), 25-34.
-18-
466
Space and Naval Warfare Systems Command (SPAWAR) (2004), Atmospheric Propagation
467
Branch, San Diego, U.S.A., User’s Manual (UM) for Advanced Refractive Effects Prediction
468
System (AREPS).
469
470
Turton, J.D., D.A. Bennetts and S.F.G. Farmer (1988), “An introduction to radio ducting,”
Meteorological Magazine, 117, pp. 245-254.
471
472
-19-
472
473
474
475
476
Table 1: Geographical positions and altitudes (above mean sea level) of the transmitting and
receiving antennas.
Jersey
(Transmitter)
Alderney
(Receiver)
Guernsey
(Receiver)
Sark
(Receiver)
Latitude
49° 16’ N
49° 43’ N
49° 27’ N
49° 26’ N
Longitude
02° 10’ W
02° 10’ W
02° 31’ W
02° 21’ W
High antenna
17.5 m
13.0 m
14.0 m
13.0 m
Low antenna
14.5 m
10.0 m
10.0 m
10.0 m
477
478
479
480
481
482
483
484
485
Table 2: Geographical positions and altitudes of weather stations in the Channel Islands
Altitude above
Latitude
Longitude
mean sea level
Channel Light Vessel
49° 54’ N
02° 54’ W
5.0 m
La Petit Val, Alderney
49° 43’ N
02° 13’ W
10.7 m
Maison St. Louis Observatory,
49° 12’ N
02° 06’ W
54.0 m
Jersey Airport
49° 13’ N
02° 12’ W
84.0 m
Alderney Airport
49° 42’ N
02° 13’ W
88.7 m
Guernsey Airport
49° 26’ N
02° 36’ W
102.0 m
St. Helier, Jersey
486
487
488
489
Table 3: Occurrence statistics of the four major types of refractive conditions and the
corresponding percentages of occurrence of enhanced signal strength at the
Alderney high antenna (August 2003 to August 2005)
Atmospheric
condition
Refractivity
gradient, dN/dh
(N-units/km)
Modified refractivity
gradient, dM/dh
(M-units/km)
Number of
occurrences
Number of corresponding
occurrences of ESS at the
Alderney high antenna
Ducting/Trapping
dN/dh ≤ -157
dM/dh ≤ 0
734
391 (53.6%)
Super-refraction
-79 ≥ dN/dh > -157
78 ≥ dM/dh > 0
2565
273 (37.4%)
Normal
0 ≥ dN/dh > -79
157 ≥ dM/dh > 78
4602
59 (8.1%)
Sub-refraction
dN/dh > 0
dM/dh > 157
439
7 (0.9%)
8340
730 (8.8%)
Total
-20-
Measured signal strength at the Alderney high antenna (dBm)
P-J evaporation duct height (m)
Figure 1: Scatter plot of the Paulus-Jeske evaporation duct heights and the
measured signal strengths at the Alderney high antenna with the
data characterised according to four distinct tidal ranges
490
491
492
493
494
495
496
497
498
499
500
501
502
-21-
502
503
504
Evaporation duct height = 14.7 m
Transmitter height = 13.8 m
Figure 2: Sample modified refractivity vs. height profile for an evaporation duct (Paulus-Jeske) on
07 December 2003 at 18:00 UT (using weather data from the Channel Light Vessel) (left
frame) and the corresponding height vs. range ray-trace plot with the transmitter placed
at 13.8 m (right frame)
-22-
High antenna signal strength at Alderney (dBm)
504
505
506
Free space threshold
Figure 3: Comparison between the hourly measured signal strength and the PE-predicted
signal strength (using P-J evaporation duct profiles) at the Alderney high
antenna during a period of normal reception in winter (4-10 December 2003)
-23-
High antenna signal strength at Alderney (dBm)
506
Free space
threshold
Figure 4: Comparison between the hourly measured signal strength and the PE-predicted
signal strength (using the P-J evaporation duct profile) at the Alderney high
antenna during a period of signal enhancement in summer (12-18 September 2003)
-24-
506
507
508
Figure 5: Scatter plots showing the correlation between the measured signal strength and
the predicted signal strength (using the PE model with P-J evaporation duct
profiles as input) for all data (left frame) and for non-ESS data only (right frame)
-25-
Percentage exceeding signal strength (%)
508
509
510
511
Figure 6: Cumulative frequency distribution curves for three sets of signal strength data at
Alderney (high antenna): (a) all measured signals (b) only non-enhanced measured
signals and (c) PE-predicted signals (using P-J evaporation duct profiles)
Figure 7: Graph depicting the hourly means for three sets of signal strength data at Alderney
(high antenna): (a) all measured signals (b) only non-enhanced measured signals
and (c) PE-predicted signals (using P-J evaporation duct profiles)
-26-
dN/dh (N-units/km)
511
512
513
514
Figure 8: Graph illustrating the seasonal distribution of ducting events in the
Channel Islands (i.e. dN/dh ≤ -157 N-units/km), using refractivity
data from nearby meteorological stations
-27-
Occurrence frequency of
(Guernsey Tair – Alderney Tair) > 1°C (%)
Month
Monthly average of
(Alderney RH – Guernsey RH) (%)
514
515
516
Month
Figure 9: Monthly plots of the percentage occurrence of temperature inversions between
the heights of the Guernsey (102.0 m) and Alderney (88.7 m) airports (top
frame) and the average relative humidity difference between these two heights
(bottom frame) from August 2003 to August 2005
-28-
516
517
518
Figure 10: Monthly plots of the percentage occurrence of enhanced signal strengths at the
Alderney high and low antennas (top frame) and the corresponding occurrence
frequency of modified refractivity inversions between the heights of the
Guernsey (102.0 m) and Alderney (88.7 m) airports (bottom frame) from August
2003 to August 2005
-29-
Number of occurrence of M-inversions between
the CLV (5.0 m) and Jersey Airport (84.0 m)
518
519
520
Month
Figure 11: The number of occurrences of M-inversions per month between the heights of
the CLV (5.0 m) and the Jersey airport (84.0 m) (August 2003 to August 2005)
-30-
520
521
522
523
524
525
526
527
528
529
530
531
532
533
534
535
536
537
538
539
540
541
542
543
544
545
546
547
548
549
550
551
552
553
554
555
556
557
558
559
560
561
562
563
564
565
566
567
568
569
570
571
Figure 12: Graph illustrating the diurnal variation in the occurrence of enhanced
signal strengths at the Alderney high and low antennas (top frame) and
the corresponding occurrence frequency of modified refractivity inversions
between the heights of Guernsey (102.0 m) and Alderney airports (88.7 m)
-31-
572
573
574
575
576
577
578
579
580
581
582
583
584
585
586
587
588
589
590
591
592
593
594
595
596
597
598
599
600
601
Free space
threshold
Figure 13: Comparison between the hourly measured signal strength and the PE-predicted
signal strength (using higher-level refractivity data) at the Alderney high antenna
during a period of signal enhancement in summer (12-18 September 2003)
-32-