IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON GEOSCIENCE AND REMOTE SENSING, VOL. 49, NO.
8, AUGUST 2011
A Novel Two-Way Finite-Element Parabolic
Equation Groundwave Propagation Tool: Tests
With Canonical Structures and Calibration
Gkhan Apaydin, Senior Member, IEEE, Ozlem Ozgun, Member, IEEE,
Mustafa Kuzuoglu, Member, IEEE, and Levent Sevgi, Fellow, IEEE
AbstractA novel two-way finite-element parabolic equation
(PE) (2W-FEMPE) propagation model which handles both for-
ward and backward scattering effects of the groundwave propaga-
tion above the Earths surface over irregular terrain paths through
inhomogeneous atmosphere is introduced. A Matlab-based propa-
gation tool for 2W-FEMPE is developed and tested against math-
ematical exact and asymptotic solutions as well as the recently
introduced two-way split-step PE model through a canonical val-
idation, verification, and calibration process for the first time in
literature.
Index TermsAtmospheric refractivity, Claerbout equation,
ducting, electromagnetic (EM) propagation, fast Fourier trans-
form (FFT), finite-element method (FEM), Matlab, narrow angle,
split-step parabolic equation (PE) (SSPE), terrain effect, wave
equation, wide angle.
I. I NTRODUCTION
O NE of the principal goals of a propagation engineer is
to develop an effective numerical propagation tool that
accurately calculates the path loss between any two points
specified on a digital map of the area of interest. The accurate
modeling of the groundwave propagation over the Earths sur-
face is usually a challenging task because of several complex
processes occurring during the propagation. In particular, the
terrain irregularities reflect and diffract energy in a compli-
cated way and have a significant impact on the radiowave
path loss. Such terrain effects become even more pronounced
when coupled with atmospheric refraction because an inhomo-
geneous atmosphere may redirect energy and cause multiple
interactions with the ground. This, in turn, certainly requires
Manuscript received June 9, 2010; revised September 30, 2010 and
December 22, 2010; accepted February 6, 2011. Date of publication
March 24, 2011; date of current version July 22, 2011.
G. Apaydin is with the Department of Electrical and Electronics Engi-
neering, Zirve University, 27260 Gaziantep, Turkey (e-mail: gokhan.apaydin@
zirve.edu.tr).
O. Ozgun is with the Department of Electrical and Electronics Engineer-
ing, Middle East Technical University, Northern Cyprus Campus, Guzelyurt,
10 Mersin, Turkey (e-mail: ozozgun@metu.edu.tr).
M. Kuzuoglu is with the Department of Electrical and Electronics Engi-
neering, Middle East Technical University, 06531 Ankara, Turkey (e-mail:
kuzuoglu@metu.edu.tr).
L. Sevgi is with the Department of Electronics and Communications
Engineering, Dogus University, 34722 Istanbul, Turkey (e-mail: lsevgi@
dogus.edu.tr).
Color versions of one or more of the figures in this paper are available online
at http://ieeexplore.ieee.org.
Digital Object Identifier 10.1109/TGRS.2011.2114889
0196-2892/$26.00 2011 IEEE
2887
a good understanding of electromagnetic (EM) wave behav-
ior in the presence of irregular terrain and inhomogeneous
atmosphere. Therefore, a generally applicable all-purpose prop-
agation prediction method/tool must be able to predict the
effect of such complex environmental factors/uncertainties on
the performance of radio communication and radar systems
[1]. However, since the complexity of the realistic propagation
scenarios may place limitations in the range of validity of
the prediction models/tools, the fidelity of the models to the
underlying physics must be assessed by means of, for example,
validation, verification, and calibration (VV&C) tests. This
process of determining whether the right model is built (or
solving the right equations) is called validation, whereas
the verification assessment examines if the model is built
right. The final step is the calibration, which is the process
of quantitatively defining the performance of the model with
respect to known and controlled models (such as exact solutions
and/or other numerical methods).
In the past, various methods/tools have been developed for
predicting EM wave propagation in the atmosphere, such as
geometric optics, physical optics, and normal mode analysis.
However, the presence of a vertical refractivity profile in the
atmosphere complicates the application of some of these meth-
ods. In geometric optics (or ray theory), the difficulties asso-
ciated with the focusing and identification of rays render the
method inconvenient for modeling reflection/diffraction effects
in nonstandard atmospheres. The mode theory can be employed
for ducting environments but becomes intractable when com-
plex refractive structures are involved. The cost of compu-
tation in modal analysis might place limitations in obtaining
convergent solutions, even in the case of simple refractivity
profiles. Thus, it is not feasible to apply these methods, even
hybrid combinations of them, to inhomogeneous atmospheres
of range-dependent problems.
The one-way parabolic equation (PE) method has been one
of the widely used propagation tools to model the ground-
wave propagation over the 2-D Earths surface because of its
flexibility in modeling both horizontally and vertically varying
atmospheric refraction effects and irregular terrain paths [1]
[17]. The standard parabolic wave equation (PWE) is derived
from Helmholtzs equation by eliminating the rapidly vary-
ing phase term to obtain a reduced function that has a slow
variation in range for propagating angles close to the paraxial
direction. Helmholtzs equation is approximated in terms of two
2888 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON GEOSCIENCE AND REMOTE SENSING, VOL. 49, NO. 8, AUGUST 2011
differential equations, both of which are in PWE form, belong-
ing to forward and backward propagating waves. In the standard
PE method, only the PWE corresponding to the forward part
is solved, which makes the method a one-way forward-scatter
model. The standard PE method has been first introduced by
Leontovich and Fock [2]. However, the development of the
Fourier split-step algorithm by Hardin and Tappert [3] has
initiated the wide-spread usage of the method in various prop-
agation scenarios. Generally speaking, the Fourier split-step
PE (SSPE) algorithm is a marching-type initial-value problem,
which computes an initial field from a known antenna pattern
located at a reference range and determines the field along
the vertical direction at each range step by using the field
at the preceding range step through the utilization of Fourier
transformations between transverse spatial and wavenumber
domains.
The step-by-step solution of the standard PWE has also
been achieved by employing finite-difference methods [8][11]
and finite-element methods (FEMs) [18][22] along each verti-
cal direction. Although the SSPE algorithm is a more robust
and faster algorithm and can handle larger range increments
(in terms of wavelength), the major advantage of the finite
methods, over the SSPE, is the easiness in handling arbitrary
boundary conditions (BCs). In particular, the FEM has been
widely used in the EM modeling due to its adaptability to
arbitrary geometries and material inhomogeneities. Therefore,
to make a compromise, the finite methods can be preferred in
complex propagation environments involving different surface
impedances [20][22].
The standard PWE is a narrow-angle approximation and
restricts the accuracy to propagation angles up to 10 15 the standard one-way PE method and its implementation via
from the paraxial direction [9]. Usually, this is not a serious
restriction since most of the long-range propagation scenarios
encounter propagation angles that are usually less than a few
degrees. On the other hand, short-range propagation problems
as well as the problems involving multiple reflections and
diffractions because of hills and valleys with steep slopes ne-
cessitate models that are effective for larger propagation angles.
Wide-angle PE propagators have been introduced to handle
propagation angles up to 40 45 [11], [23][26].
All of the aforementioned approaches offer one-way prop-
agation modeling and neglect the backward propagation and
multipath effects. Ignoring backward waves may not be serious
for long-range propagation problems, where the energy carried
by the forward propagating waves dominates. However, obsta-
cles and/or irregular terrain along the propagation path neces-
sitate the well prediction of the backward reflected, refracted,
and diffracted waves to achieve reliable results. The two-way
versions of the SSPE algorithm have also been introduced for
different applications and with implementation schemes [9],
[27][38]; pioneer works have been studied in [27] and [28]
on the construction of analytical solutions to the integral and
functional equations based on two-way PE (2W-PE) providing
the exact solution for the current on a perfectly conducting strip
(refer to [29][31] for details), in acoustic wave propagation in
elastic media [32], then in multiple scattering modeling [33],
in multiple diffraction modeling [34], and in multiple knife-
edge modeling [35]. The underlying idea, in all these, is switch-
ing the direction of propagation in the standard PE method
in a forwardbackward manner. Recently, a two-way SSPE
(2W-SSPE) has been proposed to account for multiple-
reflection effects over arbitrary staircase-approximated irregu-
lar terrain profiles [36] and then calibrated by means of various
systematic tests and comparisons [37], [38]. In this paper, the
two-way finite-element PE (2W-FEMPE) propagation tool is
presented and calibrated in certain canonical and/or complex
scenarios for the first time in literature. The VV&C of the
2W-FEMPE model is performed against the analytical data, the
Image Method and the Geometric Optic (GO) + Asymptotic
Theory of Diffraction [39][41], as well as the recently pro-
posed 2W-SSPE model [36][38]. Narrow- and wide-angle PE
models are also discussed here, for the sake of completeness.
It is generally accepted that the simplest conceptual radiowave
propagation model is GO. The EM field is locally a plane wave
in a medium that changes slowly, and wave energy propagates
along rays that are perpendicular to the wavefronts. Snells
law can be applied repeatedly to find out ray trajectories in
this medium. Unfortunately, GO fails near caustics and it also
ignores the effects of diffraction. The PE model is based on
parabolic approximation of the wave equation which admits
a very feasible numerical marching solution. The PE model
contains information missing in the GO model such as the
behavior near caustics and shadow boundaries. Also, the PE
model is frequency dependent, but GO is frequency indepen-
dent. The GO needs precise calculation of optical ray paths and
coherent integration of the family of rays passing through the
same observation point.
This paper is organized as follows: Section II summarizes
the Fourier SSPE algorithm. Section III introduces the deriva-
tions of the FEMPE model together with the two-way algo-
rithm. Canonical tests, comparisons, and calibration results are
demonstrated in Section IV. Finally, Section V draws some
conclusions.
Throughout this paper, the suppressed time dependence of
the form exp(it) is assumed.
II. PE M ODEL
The scalar wave function (x, z) can be obtained as the
solution of the following 2-D Helmholtz equation:
 2 
2 2 2
+ 2 + k0 n (x, z) (x, z) = 0 (1)
x2 z
subject to given BCs. Here, n(x, z) is the refractive index,
k0 = 2/ is the free space wavenumber ( is the wave-
length), and z and x stand for the transverse (height above
ground) and longitudinal (range) coordinates, respectively. Fur-
thermore, (x, z) corresponds to either electric or magnetic
field components for horizontal and vertical polarizations. Note
that some researchers use the terms perpendicular and parallel
polarizations, whereas others prefer horizontal or vertical polar-
izations. Here, we assume an xz plane as the 2-D environment.
The TM (vertical polarization) and TE (horizontal polarization)
equations use (Ex , Hy , Ez ) and (Hx , Ey , Hz ), respectively
APAYDIN et al.: TWO-WAY FINITE-ELEMENT PARABOLIC EQUATION GROUNDWAVE PROPAGATION TOOL
Fig. 1. 2W-PE propagation model with (right arrows) forward and (left
arrows) backward propagating waves generated from terrain reflections.
[42]. Therefore, (x, z) is the Hy and Ey for TM and TE
polarizations, respectively. Considering that the direction of
wave propagation is predominantly along the +x-axis paraxial
direction, the PWE is written by separating rapidly varying
phase terms ((x, z) = exp(ik0 x)u(x, z)). That is, the PWE
in terms of the slowly varying amplitude function u(x, z) is
expressed as follows:
   + u(x, z)
+ ik0 (1 Q) + ik0 (1 + Q) u(x, z) = 0 (2)
x x
where Q = (1 + q)1/2 and q = k02 2 /z 2 + (n2 1) if the
refractive index is independent of range.1 The first and sec-
ond parts of (2) correspond to the forward and backward
propagating waves, respectively (see Fig. 1). If the backward
propagation is ignored, (2) reduces to
 
3 2
A0 + A1 2 + A2 + A3 2 u(x, z) = 0 (3)
x z x z tion for horizontal and vertical polarizations, respectively. In the
with the help of (1 + q)1/2 (a0 + a1 q)/(b0 + b1 q) approx-
imation; therefore, A0 = b0 + b1 (n2 1), A1 = b1 k02 , A2 =
ik0 ((b0 a0 ) + (b1 a1 )(n2 1)), and A3 = ik01 (b1 a1 ).
If the angle of propagation measured from paraxial direction
is less than 15 , the standard PE is obtained with the help
of square root approximation ( 1+q 1+q/2); therefore,
A0 = 1, A1 = 0, A2 = 0.5ik0 (n2 1), and A3 = 0.5ik01 .
If the propagation angle is more than 15 , the Claerbout
equationis obtained by using the first-order Pad approxi-
mation ( 1+q (1+0.75q)/(1+0.25q)); therefore, A0 = 1+
0.25(n2 1), A1 = 0.25k02 , A2 = 0.5ik0 (n2 1), and A3 =
0.5ik01 to satisfy the propagation angles up to 40 [37].
The standard fast Fourier transform (FFT)-based SSPE so-
lution for the narrow and wide angles, respectively, are shown
in [9], [23][26]
u(x+x, z)  divide the transverse domain between the ground and the user-
= exp 0.5ik0 (n2 1)x
    
F 1 exp ikz2 x /(2k0 ) F {u(x, z)} (4)
u(x+x, z)
0 (n1)x]
= exp [ik
2889
where F refers to the Fourier transform and kz is the transform
variable (i.e., transverse wavenumber). These equations are
amenable to obtain the vertical field u(x + x, z) along x
at each range step of x. Hence, the FFT-based PE solution
employs a longitudinally marching procedure. First, an an-
tenna pattern representing the initial height profile is injected.
Next, this initial field is propagated longitudinally from x0 to
x0 + x, and the transverse field profile at the next range is
obtained. This new height profile is then used as the initial
profile for the next step, and the procedure is repeated until
the propagator reaches the desired range. It is worthwhile
to note that the effects of the Earths curvature are included
in the PE model via n n + z/ae where ae is the Earths
radius.
The appropriate transverse BC over the flat-Earths surface is
given as
  

= 0. (6)
z
z=0
In general, a Cauchy-type impedance BC (i.e., lossy Earths
surface),
which is introduced via = ik 0 1 and =
ik0 1/ for horizontal and vertical polarizations, respec-
tively. Here, = r + i60 is computed in terms of the con-
ductivity () and relative permittivity ( r ) of the ground [43].
For the perfect electric conductor (PEC) surface, Dirichlet and
Neumann BCs (DBC and NBC) have been taken into considera-
FFT-based SSPE algorithm, to satisfy the BCs over the Earths
surface, the surface is removed by taking a mirror copy of the
initial vertical field profile with respect to the surface (odd/even
symmetric for DBC/NBC, respectively). Another choice is
to use one-sided sine/cosine transforms (sinFFT/cosFFT) for
DBC/NBC, respectively. Since the propagation problem in-
volves a physical domain extending vertically to infinity, an
abrupt truncation is required at certain height, and therefore,
the upper BC must be satisfied to avoid nonphysical reflections.
Such artificial reflections can be obviated by introducing ab-
sorbing layers above the height of interest [9].
III. FEMPE P ROPAGATION T OOL
A. 1W-FEMPE Model
The initial phase of the FEM-based PWE procedure is to
defined maximum height (Zmax ) into a number of elements.
Next, starting from the initial field at x = 0, the approximated
field values at the selected discrete nodes in the vertical domain
are propagated longitudinally by applying the CrankNicholson
  


1
  approach, which is based on the improved Euler method [44]
F exp ikz2 x / k0 1+ 1kz2 /k02 [46]. Although the CrankNicholson technique is inherently
F {u(x, z)}} (5) fast, it requires that both height and range step sizes, namely,
z and x, respectively, should be chosen as small as nec-
1 This assumption does not violate the applicability of PWE to range-
essary to overcome numerical oscillation problems, which ob-
dependent refractivity profiles, because it is valid for each range step during viously decelerate the speed of the method (refer to [22] for
the split-step solution of PWE, which will be clear in the sequel. detailed discussions).
2890 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON GEOSCIENCE AND REMOTE SENSING, VOL. 49, NO. 8, AUGUST 2011

To formulate the one-way FEMPE (1W-FEMPE), we start Using CrankNicholson approximation based on the im-
with (3) whose coefficients are chosen by considering narrow- proved Euler method for k = 2, . . . , Nx where Nx is the num-
and wide-angle approximations. Note that some coefficients are ber of nodes in the horizontal domain, the new coefficients for
functions of z because of the refractivity index n. However, the next step are obtained as
the coefficients are assumed to be constant for each element by
finding the value of the refractive index at the midpoint of each  
x x
element. By multiplying (3) by a smooth test function v(z) with A+B ck = AB ck1 (12)
2 2
the given BC in (6) and by using the integration-by-parts rule,
one obtains
which yields an unconditionally stable system and accu-
Zmax
 rate method with the discretization error O(x2 ). The co-
u(x, z) v(z)
A0 u(x, z)v(z) A1 efficients of the initial field c1 at x = 0 can be generated
x z z from the Gaussian antenna pattern specified by its height
0
 (hv ), 3-dB beamwidth angle (bw ), and tilt angle (tilt ).
u(x, z) v(z) Although CrankNicholson provides a fast solution, it has
+ A2 u(x, z)v(z) A3 dz
z z some disadvantages since oscillation occurs for large x
 [22], [45].
u(Zmax ) u(0)
+ A1 v(Zmax ) v(0)
x z z
 B. 2W-FEMPE Model
u(Zmax ) u(0)
+ A3 v(Zmax ) v(0) = 0. (7) The 2W-FEMPE approach is the iterative implementation
z z of the 1W-FEMPE algorithm by simply rotating the direction
of propagation in a forwardbackward manner to estimate
The last two terms of (7) should be taken into consideration
the multiple-reflection effects. The principle idea is based on
according to BCs. Replacing u(x, z) with the approximated
the 2W-SSPE proposed in [32][34]. The algorithm can be
solution
applied to a variable terrain by using staircase approximations,

ne 
2 as shown in Fig. 1. If the vertical field meets a vertical
uap (x, z) = cej (x)Bje (z) (8) terrain facet, it is split into two components propagating
e=1 j=1 in forward and backward directions. The forward field
continues in the usual way after setting it to zero on the
where ne is the number of elements and cej (x) indicates the vertical terrain facet. In other words, the fields (at x + x)
coefficients of the unknown function. Moreover, the basis obtained from the previous vertical field (at x) are set to zero
functions are chosen as the linear piecewise Lagrange poly- inside the terrain (between z = 0 and z = zter(x0 + x)).
nomials as follows: B1e (z) = (z2e z)/(z2e z1e ) and B2e (z) = However, it is evident that the field must be partially
(z z1e )/(z2e z1e ), where e stands for the element between reflected from the terrain facet. Therefore, first the initial
nodes z1e and z2e . By choosing the test function v(z) as the same field of the backward field is obtained by imposing the
as the basis function Bm (z) for m = 1, 2, the matrix form of BCs at the facet (i.e., the tangential field must be zero on
(7) is the PEC facet), and then, this initial field is marched back
c in the x direction by reversing the signs of k0 and x.
A + Bc = 0 (9) Namely, the backward propagating waves are initiated from
x
the waves between z = zter(x) and z = zter(x0 + x)
with A = A0 M A1 K and B = A2 M A3 K + A3 BC and then propagated in the reverse direction. Note that
or (A0 Mmje
A1 Kmj
e
){cej /x} + (A2 Mmje
A3 Kmj
e
+ the same form of the PWE is derived, as expected,
A3 BCmj ){cj } = {0} for e = 1, . . . , ne , m = 1, 2, and
e e for the reduced function in the backward propagation,
j = 1, 2 with but the original field is expressed as b (x, z) =
ub (x, z) exp(ik0 x).
z2 z2
e e
e B e Both forward and backward fields continue to march out in
e e Bm j
Mmj = Bm Bje dz e
Kmj = dz (10) their own propagation directions. At each time the wave hits a
z z terrain facet, it is again split into forward and backward com-
z1e z1e
ponents. The total field inside the domain is then determined
and BCmje
is taken into consideration with BCs as BC11 1
= by the superposition of the backward and forward fields at
for each step in x, x + x, . . .. The ground properties are each range step. It is useful to note that the convergence of
incorporated into the FEM with the help of the matrix BC. the algorithm is achieved because, as the iterations are carried
The elemental matrices between nodes z1e and z2e for the linear out, the field contributions
of the multiple reflections decrease
piecewise Lagrange polynomials are obtained as with regard to the 1/ r term in the 2-D Greens function.


 The convergence of the algorithm is checked against a certain
e z 2 1 e 1 1 1 threshold criterion, which compares the total fields at each
[M ] = [K ] = . (11)
6 1 2 z 1 1 iteration.
APAYDIN et al.: TWO-WAY FINITE-ELEMENT PARABOLIC EQUATION GROUNDWAVE PROPAGATION TOOL 2891

IV. C ANONICAL T ESTS , C OMPARISONS , TABLE I

PARALLEL -P LATE PEC WAVEGUIDE : N UMBER OF M ODES (N ) AS A
AND C ALIBRATION F UNCTION OF M AXIMUM I NITIAL F IELD E RRORS AND VARIOUS T ILT
A NGLES AT 1 GH Z . ( A ) bw = 35 . ( B ) bw = 7 [hv = 4 m, d = 8 m]
A. Tests With 1W-FEMPE Model
In this section, both 1W- and 2W-FEMPE algorithms are
calibrated through some canonical tests and comparisons. A
critical issue in these calibrations is the construction of the
reference (analytical exact/approximate) solution [47]. First,
2-D propagation inside a parallel-plate waveguide with PEC
boundaries is taken into account. The horizontally polarized
wave function inside a PEC parallel-plate waveguide with width
d under DBC, which is located longitudinally along x, may be
represented in terms of modal summation given as

2
N  q 
u(x, z) = cq sin z exp(iq x) (13)
d q=1 d

where N is the total number of modes, q = k02 (q/d)2
is the longitudinal propagation constant for the mode q, and cq
is the modal excitation coefficient numerically derived from the
vertical orthonormality condition as
d  q 
cq = g(z) sin z dz. (14)
d
0
2 1/2
Here, g(z) = (2 ) exp[(z hv )2 /(2 2 )] and is the
spatial width of the Gaussian source. The Gaussian source
pattern is often used in applications since it represents various
antenna types. The Gaussian antenna pattern can also be defined
in the vertical wavenumber domain as


kz2 ln2
g(kz ) = exp . (15)
2k02 sin2 (bw /2)
Fig. 2. Parallel-plate PEC waveguide modeled with narrow-angle propagator.
The tilt (or elevation) angle tilt is introduced by shifting the (Top) FEMPE (z = 5 mm and x = 17 mm). (Bottom) SSPE (z =
antenna pattern, i.e., g(kz ) g(kz k0 sin tilt ). The vertical 20 mm and x = 67 mm) with 30 tilted waves at 1 GHz (hv = 4 m,
field distribution in the spatial domain is then obtained by bw = 7 , and d = 8 m).
taking the inverse Fourier transform of (15).
The limiting case for the source function u(x, z) is the downward, inside an 8-m-wide parallel-plate PEC waveguide
line-source representation which requires an infinite number under DBC, the performances of narrow- and wide-angle PE
of modes (N ) in the modal summation. The number tools with respect to the analytical result are shown in Figs. 2
of modes would be finite for any other source function. It is and 3 by means of 3-D field maps. The two field maps in
common to choose a vertically extending Gaussian function Fig. 2 alone (generated with the narrow-angle 1W-FEMPE and
with arbitrary location having vertical tilt angle in the range of 1W-SSPE tools) seem to be logical and physical. A down-
90 . Note that the modal excitation coefficient cq is real for tilted Gaussian beam is bouncing up and down while lon-
a real source function without any tilt and becomes complex if gitudinally propagating with the interference patterns exactly
there is a downward/upward tilt no matter if the source function like that shown in the figure. On the other hand, the true 3-D
is real or not. The number of modes, which are necessary for wave patterns are shown in Fig. 3. The analytical exact so-
the modal summation representation for a vertical Gaussian lution is exactly the same as the FEMPE and SSPE results
source function located at midheight of an 8-m-wide parallel- of Fig. 3 and is not shown here. Hence, these results validate
plate waveguide, is listed in Table I. As observed, the number the accuracy of the wide-angle FEMPE and SSPE and show
of modes is less than a few hundreds even for 45 vertical that the narrow-angle FEMPE and SSPE cannot handle large
tilts. The higher the tilt angles (or frequency), the higher the tilt angles. To validate the narrow-angle model, the angle must
number of modes required in the modal summation. Moreover, be constrained to be less than 10 15 while considering both
the number of modes increases as the vertical source beamwidth beamwidth and tilt angles. Figs. 4 and 5 show horizontal field
gets narrower. profiles computed via analytical, FEMPE, and SSPE models
Assuming a horizontally polarized Gaussian source at 1 GHz at two different heights. In Fig. 4, the results computed via
with 3-dB beamwidth of 7 , located at midheight and tilted 30 narrow-angle FEMPE and SSPE tools are compared against
2892 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON GEOSCIENCE AND REMOTE SENSING, VOL. 49, NO. 8, AUGUST 2011
Fig. 3. Parallel-plate PEC waveguide modeled with wide-angle propagator.
(Top) FEMPE. (Bottom) SSPE with the same parameters as in Fig. 2.
Fig. 4. Parallel-plate PEC waveguide (narrow case). Horizontal field profiles
at two different heights with the same parameters as in Fig. 2.
the reference solution. As observed, FEMPE and SSPE agree
very well but they both disagree with the reference (analytical)
solution. This is an interesting example since it shows that
both FEMPE and SSPE pass the verification test but fail from
the (model) validity test. The same comparison computed via
the wide-angle FEMPE and SSPE tools is shown in Fig. 5.
As observed, all three agree very well, which concludes both
the validation and verification tests. Finally, triple comparison
with both narrow- and wide-angle FEMPE and SSPE in a
highly oscillatory region at 40-m range is shown in Fig. 6. As
observed, excellent agreement can be obtained as long as wide-
angle tools are used with proper discretization steps.
Another propagation scenario involving an analytical solu-
tion is now considered to illustrate the difficulties not only in
comparisons but also in numerical complexity in the produc-
tion of the reference solutions. The second reference solution
Fig. 5. Parallel-plate PEC waveguide (wide case). Horizontal field profiles at
two different heights with the same parameters as in Fig. 2.
Fig. 6. Vertical field profiles inside a parallel-plate PEC waveguide at 40-m
range. (Left) Narrow angle. (Right) Wide angle with the same parameters as
in Fig. 2.
belongs to the surface duct problem [14][16]. Propagation
over the PEC flat Earth with a linearly decreasing vertical
refractivity profile (such as n2 (z) = 1 a0 z) is a canonical
structure whose analytical solutions are available in terms of
Airy functions for the range-independent vertical refractive
index. Here, a0 is a positive constant that controls the strength
of the duct. The exact modal summation is
  
N
1/3
u(x, z) = cq Ai a0 k02 z q exp(iq x) (16)
q=1

where q = k02 q (a0 k02 )2/3 is the longitudinal propaga-
tion constant for the related mode represented by index q, cq
is the modal excitation coefficient numerically derived from
the vertical orthonormality condition expressed similar to (14),
and Ai is an Airy function of the first kind. The BC at the
surface is satisfied with Ai(q ) = 0 and Ai (q ) = 0 for the
DBC (horizontal polarization) and NBC (vertical polarization),
APAYDIN et al.: TWO-WAY FINITE-ELEMENT PARABOLIC EQUATION GROUNDWAVE PROPAGATION TOOL 2893

respectively. Here, the prime denotes the derivative with respect

to the vertical coordinate. Cauchy-type BC (i.e., lossy Earth)
can easily be constructed in terms of these two BCs and the
electrical parameters of the ground.
A vertically extending Gaussian function is chosen with a
vertical tilt angle much less than 90 . The number of required
modes drastically increases from a few tens to several thousands
when the tilt angle increases from a 1 2 to 6 8 . Tens
of thousands of modes would not be sufficient to take into
account tilt angles more than 10 (even for the twice-wide
beamwidth). Obviously, this places a serious bottleneck in the
numerical realizations. First, modes are confined between the
Earths surface and their caustics [14] which go higher and
higher as the mode number increases. The modal excitation
coefficients are calculated numerically using the orthonormality
principle; hence, a numerical integration is performed in the
vertical domain for each mode. This implies that both the
integration step and the upper integral boundary should be al-
tered dynamically. Therefore, this surface duct problem is used
only in the verification tests due to the challenge in producing
the numerical reference data. (Note that, mathematically exact
representations do not necessarily yield reference solutions,
unless numerical data are generated with a desired accuracy.)
An 80-km-long smooth homogeneous propagation path is
considered for the surface duct problem with the refractivity
slope (dM/dz) of 1200 Munit/km in height (although not
physical, this refractivity is chosen to perform verification tests
under the existence of a highly strong surface trapping duct). Fig. 7. Three-dimensional color plots of field versus range-height variations
Note that M is the modified refractivity, defined as M = (n + for a given 1 , 0 , and 0.5 tilted waves at 150, 350, and 500 m (with re-
fractivity slope of 1 200 Munit/km, f = 1 GHz, bw = 0.5 , z = 0.78 m
z/ae 1) 106 . Three horizontally polarized Gaussian beams and x = 100 m in 4.26 s for SSPE, and z = 0.39 m and x = 25 m in
having the same vertical beamwidth of 0.5 are located at 150-, 3900 s for FEMPE).
350-, and 500-m heights with vertical tilts of 1 , 0 , and
0.5 , respectively. The frequency is 1 GHz, and DBC is used
for the PEC ground. Fig. 7 shows 3-D color plots of field
versus rangeheight variations computed using (16), FEMPE,
and SSPE models. As observed, the narrow-angle FEMPE and
SSPE models very well agree with the reference solution. This
agreement is also shown in Fig. 8, which shows vertical field
profiles at 10- and 50-km ranges.

B. Tests With 2W-FEMPE Model

The 2W-FEMPE model is validated and verified against an-
alytical approximate models as well as the recently introduced
2W-SSPE model [36][38]. In the first few scenarios, the tests
are performed against the GO+UTD results, assuming that the
frequency is 3 GHz and the polarization is horizontal; therefore,
DBC has been taken into consideration at the surface. It is
worthwhile to note that the calibration by GO+UTD is possible
only at high frequencies where the GO interpretation is valid.
The first scenario belongs to a single PEC wall of finite height Fig. 8. Vertical field profiles at two different ranges with the same parameters
(i.e., a knife edge), illuminated by a line source over a PEC as in Fig. 7.
ground and in the free space. The approximate solution of this
well-known and canonical problem in the field of diffraction from the ground and the wall are determined by employing the
theory is available by combining the GO technique with some principles of image theory. Fig. 9 shows some of the possible
special diffraction methods (such as nonuniform geometric the- GO+UTD components that must be taken into account in the
ory of diffraction (GTD) [39], UTD [40], and physical theory GO+UTD computations. Note that double diffractions have not
of diffraction [41]). In the GO method, the reflected waves been included in the GO+UTD calculations. The total field
2894 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON GEOSCIENCE AND REMOTE SENSING, VOL. 49, NO. 8, AUGUST 2011
Fig. 9. GO+UTD modeling and some possible direct, reflected, and diffracted
field components.
Fig. 10. Two-way propagation over PEC ground with one 150-m-height wall
at 40-km range. The PF versus range/height for a given source (at 250-m height
and 0-km range). (Top) GO+UTD. (Bottom) FEMPE method, f = 3 GHz.
is determined by summing the direct ray, the reflected rays
emanating from image sources, and the rays diffracted from the
tip of the wall. Note that these ray contributions are added to
the total field only if the line-of-sight (LOS) condition between
each source and the observation point is satisfied.
The first simulation results are shown in Fig. 10, assuming
that the line source is at 250 m above the ground at 0-km range.
The height of the wall is 150 m, the wall is positioned at 40-km
range, and the polarization is horizontal; therefore, DBC is
satisfied at the surface of the wall and the ground. The region
between the source and the wall is within the interference
region where forward-, ground-, and backward-reflected waves
interfere. Beyond the wall, only diffracted waves appear for
heights below the source height (i.e., in the shadow region), and
forward propagated and diffracted waves exist if the receiver
height is above the source height. The LOS and reflection
boundaries and transitional regions around these boundaries are
clearly observed in both maps. Note that, in the 2W-FEMPE
implementation, the field bounces from the wall only once.
Namely, only a single forwardbackward field pair is generated
without resorting to any iterative scheme. Two vertical slices at
25 and 35 km (in the interference region) extracted from this
3-D field map are shown in Fig. 11. The result of the recently
Fig. 11. The PF versus height at two specified ranges with the same pa-
rameters as in Fig. 10. SSPE (z = 0.33 m and x = 100 m) and FEMPE
(z = 0.33 m and x = 12.5 m).
Fig. 12. Two-way propagation over PEC ground with one 150-m-height wall at
40-km range and an infinite-height wall at 60 km. The PF versus range/height for
a given source (at 250-m height). (Top) GO+UTD. (Bottom) FEMPE method.
introduced 2W-SSPE model is also included in this figure. As
observed, excellent agreement has been obtained among all
three models.
The second scenario deals with two walls, one of which is
finite and the other one is infinite in height. The finite-height
(150-m) wall is located at 40 km, and the infinite-height wall is
at 60 km. Fig. 12 shows the test results (as a 3-D field map ver-
sus range/height). The line source is at 250 m above the ground,
and the polarization is horizontal. Same as before, DBC is used
at the surface of the walls and the ground. Note that the region
between the walls exhibits multiple reflections and diffractions
from the walls and/or ground. In the 2W-FEMPE realization,
the field in this region bounces from both of the walls several
times until the contribution becomes negligible (for a given
APAYDIN et al.: TWO-WAY FINITE-ELEMENT PARABOLIC EQUATION GROUNDWAVE PROPAGATION TOOL 2895

Fig. 13. PF versus height at two specified ranges with the same parameters as
in Fig. 12. SSPE (z = 0.33 m and x = 100 m). FEMPE (z = 0.33 m
and x = 12.5 m).

accuracy limit). The propagation factor (PF) versus height at

35- and 50-km ranges of this scenario is shown in Fig. 13.
At 35-km range, forward propagating waves interfere with the
backward reflected waves (from the knife-edge wall) and edge-
diffracted waves (from the top of the knife-edge wall). Since
the forward-propagated and backward-reflected contributions
are stronger than the edge-diffracted contributions, excellent
agreement among the three models is obtained. It is observed Fig. 14. Two-way propagation for horizontal polarization over PEC ground
that multiple reflections (almost resonance behavior) occur in with two finite-height walls (100-m-high wall at 20-km range and 150-m-high
the region between the walls. It is known that the GTD is a wall at 40-km range). The PF versus range/height for a given source (at 5-m
height). (Top) FEMPE, (middle) SSPE, and (bottom) GO+UTD (x = 100 m
high-frequency asymptotic method; whereas, the FEMPE and and z = 0.29 m).
SSPE approaches can account for the diffraction effects up
to a certain extent. In comparing the 2W-FEMPE with the
GO+UTD approach, the contribution of the waves hitting the
walls up to three times is superposed. To have fair comparisons
up to third degree of reflections, the GO+UTD code is devel-
oped to account for 35 types of rays bouncing from the walls
and the ground, in accordance with the LOS criteria. These
rays include the reflected waves up to third degree, as well
as the diffracted waves from the finite-height wall. Excellent
agreement among the results verifies the performance of the
2W-FEMPE with respect to the GO+UTD approach. However,
the multiple bouncing of the diffracted fields from the walls and
the ground is ignored in the GO+UTD code due their negligible
effects compared with strong reflections. Therefore, a little
discrepancy among the results appears there, as expected.
The scenario shown in Fig. 14 involves two finite-height
walls along the propagation path (100-m-high wall at 20-km
range and 150-m-high wall at 40-km range) illuminated by a
horizontally polarized line source at 5 m (i.e., multiple-wedge
problem). The walls and the ground satisfy DBC. The three
field maps (from top to bottom) belong to the FEMPE, SSPE,
and GO+UTD results. The boundaries of both incident (i.e.,
LOS) and reflected fields are observed in all three maps. The
artificial effects around these boundaries are also clearly ob-
served in the GO+UTD map (this is not observed in the FEMPE Fig. 15. PF versus height at two specified ranges with the same parameters as
and SSPE maps). The two plots in Fig. 15 belong to PF versus in Fig. 14 (z = 0.29 m and x = 200 m).
2896 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON GEOSCIENCE AND REMOTE SENSING, VOL. 49, NO. 8, AUGUST 2011

Fig. 17. PF versus height at two specified ranges with the same parameters
as in Fig. 16. SSPE (z = 0.16 m and x = 100 m) and FEMPE (z =
0.33 m and x = 12.5 m).
Fig. 16. Two-way propagation for vertical polarization over PEC ground with
two infinite-height walls at 0 and 60 km. The PF versus range/height for a
given source (at 30-km range and 100-m height). (Top) Image method and
(bottom) FEMPE method, where f = 3 GHz, z = 0.33 m, x = 25 m.
# of images = 5, and # of reflection = 1.

height at two different ranges, showing the comparison among

the three models. At the bottom left, the range is 15 km, which
is in the interference region. The range at the bottom right is
35 km, which is in the shadow/diffraction region. As observed,
excellent agreement is obtained in the first region again, but
a discrepancy is observed in the shadow region. Note that the
realization of the line-source excitation in the FEMPE at least
in its current piecewise linear model is almost impossible (it
is known that source modeling requires additional effort in
any variant of FEM approach); therefore, the SSPE-propagated
vertical field profile, which is a few wavelengths away from the
source, can be used as the initial source profile of the FEMPE
model.
To confirm these speculations, the propagation scenario for
vertical polarization between two infinite-extent walls with
infinite number of reflections from both ends (i.e., with infinite Fig. 18. Two-way propagation over arbitrary terrain through homogeneous
standard atmosphere. The PF versus range/height for a given source (hv1 =
number of images) is taken into account. The image method is 150 m, bw1 = 1 , tilt1 = 25 , hv2 = 200 m, bw2 = 1 , and tilt2 =
used as follows. There is a single ground image of the source. 5 ). (Top) Narrow FEMPE and (bottom) wide FEMPE, with f = 600 MHz,
First, the ground is removed and an image is placed to represent z = 0.42 m, and x = 1 m in 50 min.
the ground. The source is vertically polarized; therefore, NBC
is required at the bottom. However, there is an infinite number that might serve as reference and where only the FEMPE
of images because of the two walls. The source in this case is model can be compared with the SSPE model for horizontal
parallel to both walls, which means that DBC must be taken into polarization. Fig. 18 shows the comparison of narrow- and
account on the walls. The 3-D field map versus range/height wide-angle FEMPE results. As observed, narrow-angle FEMPE
of this scenario is shown in Fig. 16. The PF versus height at cannot accurately account for the reflections which change
40- and 50-km ranges, computed with GO+GTD, FEMPE, and the true field map considerably. The 3-D field maps versus
SSPE models, is shown in Fig. 17. Excellent agreement among range/height of another scenario produced with the 2W-FEMPE
the models show that the 2W-FEMPE (also, the 2W-SSPE) can and 2W-SSPE models are shown in Fig. 19.
account for even highly resonating interferences. Note that the Note that Figs. 18 and 19 need further comparisons against
discrepancy at short ranges in the vicinity of the line source other full wave (e.g., the Method of Moments (MoM)-based
is just because of the inefficiency in the FEMPE model in [48][50] and/or the time-domain propagation [51][54]) mod-
representing the line source. els in order to complete the VV&C tests. This is because
Finally, Figs. 18 and 19 belong to arbitrary terrain profiles both SSPE and FEMPE approaches start with the same PE
which do not have any analytical exact or approximate solution model and equally inherit all modeling incapabilities (e.g., the
APAYDIN et al.: TWO-WAY FINITE-ELEMENT PARABOLIC EQUATION GROUNDWAVE PROPAGATION TOOL
Fig. 19. Two-way propagation over arbitrary terrain through inhomogeneous
atmosphere. The PF versus range/height for a given source (hv = 400 m,
bw = 0.5 , tilt = 0.5 ). (Top) FEMPE and (bottom) SSPE, with f = terrain structure, inhomogeneous atmosphere, and the selection
300 MHz, z = 1 m, and x = 200 m, with refractivity slope of 200
Munit/km between 300 and 400 m (ducting case). tfempe = 7 min and
tsspe = 30 s.
Fig. 20. Two-way propagation over arbitrary terrain through inhomogeneous
atmosphere. The PF versus range at z = 250 m for the given source (hv =
400 m, bw = 0.5 , and tilt = 0.5 ) using 2W-SSPE and 2W-FEMPE
(f = 300 MHz, z = 1 m, and x = 200 m, with refractivity slope of
200 Munit/km between 300 and 400 m (ducting case), tfempe = 7 min, and
tsspe = 30 s).
paraxial approximation). Yet, analytical exact solutions have
not appeared for the irregular terrain models. The asymptotic
GO+UTD model is not applicable (in its current form) to
problems containing irregular terrains (which is beyond the
scope of this study). To support this speculation, the PF versus
range extracted from the 3-D field maps shown in Fig. 19
is plotted in Fig. 20. Here, the horizontal PF is plotted from
20 to 60 km, which is the range of interference of forward-
and backward-propagated waves. As observed, there is a good
agreement between the results of the 2W-FEMPE and 2W-
SSPE models, but this is not as good as the agreement obtained
in other examples.
2897
V. C ONCLUSION
A 2W-FEMPE algorithm has been developed, tested, and
calibrated against scenarios with analytical exact solutions,
such as the modal summation, image method, and asymptotic
models, such as GO+UTD models. Tests and comparisons
are also performed against the 2W-SSPE algorithm. Both
narrow- and wide-angle PE models are used during these tests
and comparisons. Excellent agreement obtained from these
tests/comparisons among all the models used show that both of
the 2W-FEMPE and 2W-SSPE models can be used effectively
in complex propagation scenarios above the Earths surface
through inhomogeneous atmosphere.
The FEMPE model needs much smaller range steps than
the SSPE model and therefore necessitates longer computation
times when long-range propagation is of interest. According to
the last example (shown in Fig. 19), the computation time of
the FEMPE is at least 14 times longer as compared with that of
SSPE. As a result, the number of nodes used in the transverse
and range coordinates should be optimized with respect to the
following parameters: the operating frequency, the irregular
of the initial antenna pattern specified by its height, beamwidth,
and tilt. Moreover, the line-source excitation is a serious prob-
lem in the FEMPE model, but this might be overcome by
constructing the initial field profile at a few wavelengths away
from the line source by using some other models such as the
SSPE or GO, etc., or using smooth, such as Gaussian-type,
source patterns. On the other hand, FEMPE model handles all
kinds of BC at the surface much more easily when compared
with the SSPE model.
R EFERENCES
[1] S. Grosdidier, A. Baussard, and A. Khenchaf, HFSW radar model: Sim-
ulation and measurement, IEEE Trans. Geosci. Remote Sens., vol. 48,
no. 9, pp. 35393549, Sep. 2010.
[2] M. A. Leontovich and V. A. Fock, Solution of propagation of electro-
magnetic waves along the Earths surface by the method of parabolic
equation, J. Phys. USSR, vol. 10, pp. 1323, 1946.
[3] R. H. Hardin and F. D. Tappert, Applications of the split-step Fourier
method to the numerical solution of nonlinear and variable coefficient
wave equations, SIAM Rev., vol. 15, p. 423, 1973.
[4] J. R. Kuttler and G. D. Dockery, Theoretical description of the parabolic
approximation/Fourier split-step method of representing electromagnetic
propagation in the troposphere, Radio Sci., vol. 26, no. 2, pp. 381393,
1991.
[5] A. E. Barrios, Parabolic equation modeling in horizontally inhomoge-
neous environments, IEEE Trans. Antennas Propag., vol. 40, no. 7,
pp. 791797, Jul. 1992.
[6] A. E. Barrios, A terrain parabolic equation model for propagation in the
troposphere, IEEE Trans. Antennas Propag., vol. 42, no. 1, pp. 9098,
Jan. 1994.
[7] R. Janaswamy, A curvilinear coordinate-based split-step parabolic equa-
tion method for propagation predictions over terrain, IEEE Trans. Anten-
nas Propag., vol. 46, no. 7, pp. 10891097, Jul. 1998.
[8] C. A. Zelley and C. C. Constantinou, A three-dimensional parabolic
equation applied to VHF/UHF propagation over irregular terrain, IEEE
Trans. Antennas Propag., vol. 47, no. 10, pp. 15861596, Oct. 1999.
[9] M. F. Levy, Parabolic Equation Methods for Electromagnetic Wave Prop-
agation. London, U.K.: IEE, 2000.
[10] C. Mias, Fast computation of the nonlocal boundary condition in finite
difference parabolic equation radiowave propagation simulations, IEEE
Trans. Antennas Propag., vol. 56, no. 6, pp. 16991705, Jun. 2008.
[11] P. D. Holm, Wide-angle shift-map PE for a piecewise linear terrain
A finite-difference approach, IEEE Trans. Antennas Propag., vol. 55,
no. 10, pp. 27732789, Oct. 2007.
2898 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON GEOSCIENCE AND REMOTE SENSING, VOL. 49, NO. 8, AUGUST 2011
[12] D. J. Donohue and J. R. Kuttler, Propagation modeling over terrain using
the parabolic wave equation, IEEE Trans. Antennas Propag., vol. 48,
no. 2, pp. 260277, Feb. 2000.
[13] L. Sevgi, F. Akleman, and L. B. Felsen, Groundwave propagation
modeling: Problem-matched analytical formulations and direct numerical
techniques, IEEE Antennas Propag. Mag., vol. 44, no. 1, pp. 5575,
Feb. 2002.
[14] L. Sevgi, Complex Electromagnetic Problems and Numerical Simulation
Approaches. Piscataway, NJ: IEEE Press, Jun. 2003.
[15] L. Sevgi, C. Uluisik, and F. Akleman, A Matlab-based two-dimensional
parabolic equation radiowave propagation package, IEEE Antennas
Propag. Mag., vol. 47, no. 4, pp. 164175, Aug. 2005.
[16] L. Sevgi, Groundwave modeling and simulation strategies and path loss
prediction virtual tools, IEEE Trans. Antennas Propag., vol. 55, no. 6,
pp. 15911598, Jun. 2007, (Special issue on Electromagnetic Wave Prop-
agation in Complex Environments: A Tribute to L. B. Felsen).
[17] D. A. Hill and J. R. Wait, HF ground wave propagation over mixed land,
sea, and sea-ice paths, IEEE Trans. Geosci. Remote Sens., vol. GRS-19,
no. 4, pp. 210216, Oct. 1981.
[18] D. Huang, Finite element solution to the parabolic wave equation,
J. Acoust. Soc. Am., vol. 84, no. 4, pp. 14051413, Oct. 1988.
[19] K. Arshad, F. A. Katsriku, and A. Lasebae, An investigation of tropo-
spheric radio wave propagation using finite elements, WSEAS Trans.
Communications, vol. 4, no. 11, pp. 11861192, Nov. 2005.
[20] G. Apaydin and L. Sevgi, FEM-based surface wave multi-mixed-path
propagator and path loss predictions, IEEE Antennas Wireless Propag.
Lett., vol. 8, pp. 10101013, 2009.
[21] G. Apaydin and L. Sevgi, Numerical investigations of and path loss pre-
dictions for surface wave propagation over sea paths including hilly island
transitions, IEEE Trans. Antennas Propag., vol. 58, no. 4, pp. 1302
1314, Apr. 2010.
[22] G. Apaydin and L. Sevgi, The split step Fourier and finite element
based parabolic equation propagation prediction tools: Canonical tests,
systematic comparisons, and calibration, IEEE Antennas Propag. Mag.,
vol. 52, no. 3, pp. 6679, Jun. 2010.
[23] D. J. Thomson and N. R. Chapman, A wide-angle split-step algorithm
for the parabolic equation, J. Acoust. Soc. Am., vol. 74, no. 6, pp. 1848
1854, Dec. 1983.
[24] M. D. Collins, A split-step Pade solution for the parabolic wave equa-
tion, J. Acoust. Soc. Am., vol. 93, no. 4, pp. 17361742, Apr. 1993.
[25] J. R. Kuttler, Differences between the narrow-angle and wide-angle
propagators in the split-step Fourier solution of the parabolic wave equa-
tion, IEEE Trans. Antennas Propag., vol. 47, no. 7, pp. 11311140,
Jul. 1999.
[26] M. F. Levy, Diffraction studies in urban environment with wide-angle
parabolic equation method, Electron. Lett., vol. 28, no. 16, pp. 1491
1492, Jul. 1992.
[27] L. A. Weinstein, Open Resonators and Open Waveguides. Boulder, CO:
Golem Press, 1969.
[28] P. Y. Ufimtsev, Current waves in a thin wire and in a ribbon, U.S.S.R.,
Comput. Math. Math. Phys., vol. 8, no. 6, pp. 250261, 1968.
[29] P. Y. Ufimtsev, Theory of Edge Diffraction in Electromagnetics. Encino,
CA: Tech Science Press, 2003.
[30] P. Y. Ufimtsev, Theory of Edge Diffraction in Electromagnetics: Origina-
tion and Validation of the Physical Theory of Diffraction. Raleigh, NC:
SciTech Publishing, Inc., 2009.
[31] P. Y. Ufimtsev and S. A. P. Krasnozhen, Current waves in a straight thin
wire resonators with finite conductivity, Electromagnetics, vol. 12, no. 2,
pp. 121132, 1992.
[32] M. D. Collins, A two-way parabolic equation for elastic media,
J. Acoust. Soc. Amer., vol. 93, no. 4, pp. 18151825, Apr. 1993.
[33] J. F. Lingevitch, M. D. Collins, M. J. Mills, and R. B. Evans, A two-way
parabolic equation that accounts for multiple scattering, J. Acoust. Soc.
Am., vol. 112, no. 2, pp. 476480, Aug. 2002.
[34] M. J. Mills, M. D. Collins, and J. F. Lingevitch, Two-way parabolic equa-
tion techniques for diffraction and scattering problems, Wave Motion,
vol. 31, no. 2, pp. 173180, Feb. 2000.
[35] H. Orazi and S. Hosseinzadeh, Radio-wave-propagation modeling in the
presence of multiple knife edges by the bidirectional parabolic-equation
method, IEEE Trans. Veh. Technol., vol. 56, no. 3, pp. 10331040,
May 2007.
[36] O. Ozgun, Recursive two-way parabolic equation approach for model-
ing terrain effects in tropospheric propagation, IEEE Trans. Antennas
Propag., vol. 57, no. 9, pp. 27062714, Sept. 2009.
[37] G. Apaydin, O. Ozgun, M. Kuzuoglu, and L. Sevgi, Two-way split-
step Fourier and finite element based parabolic equation propagation
tools: Comparisons and calibration, in Proc. IEEE Int. Symp. Antennas
Propagation USNC/URSI Nat. Radio Sci. Meet., Toronto, ON, Canada,
July 1117, 2010, pp. 14.
[38] O. Ozgun, G. Apaydin, M. Kuzuoglu, and L. Sevgi, Two-way Fourier
split step algorithm over variable terrain with narrow and wide angle prop-
agators, in Proc. IEEE Int. Symp. Antennas Propagation USNC/URSI
Nat. Radio Sci. Meet., Toronto, ON, Canada, July 1117, 2010, pp. 14.
[39] J. B. Keller, Geometrical theory of diffraction, J. Opt. Soc. Amer.,
vol. 52, no. 2, pp. 116130, 1962.
[40] R. G. Kouyoumjian and P. H. Pathak, A uniform geometrical theory of
diffraction for an edge in a perfectly conducting surface, Proc. IEEE,
vol. 62, no. 11, pp. 14481461, Nov. 1974.
[41] P. Y. Ufimtsev, Fundamentals of the Physical Theory of Diffraction.
Hoboken, NJ: Wiley, 2007.
[42] L. Sevgi, Guided waves and transverse fields: Transverse to what?,
IEEE Antennas Propag. Mag., vol. 50, no. 6, pp. 221225, Dec. 2008.
[43] J. R. Wait, The scope of impedance boundary conditions in radio prop-
agation, IEEE Trans. Geosci. Remote Sens., vol. 28, no. 4, pp. 721723,
Jul. 1990.
[44] J. Volakis, A. Chatterjee, and L. Kempel, Finite Element Method for
Electromagnetics: Antennas, Microwave Circuits, and Scattering Appli-
cations. Piscataway, NJ: IEEE Press, 1998.
[45] J.-M. Jin, The Finite Element Method in Electromagnetics. New York:
Wiley, 2002.
[46] W. Y. Yang, W. Cao, T. Chung, and J. Morris, Applied Numerical Methods
Using Matlab. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley, 2005.
[47] G. Apaydin and L. Sevgi, Validation, verification and calibration in ap-
plied computational electromagnetics, in Proc. 26th Int. Rev. Progr. Appl.
Comput. Electromagn., Tampere, Finland, Apr. 2529, 2010, pp. 679684.
[48] C. A. Tunc, A. Altintas, and V. B. Erturk, Examination of existent
propagation models over large inhomogeneous terrain profiles using fast
integral equation solution, IEEE Trans. Antennas Propag., vol. 53, no. 9,
pp. 30803083, Sep. 2005.
[49] C. Tunc, F. Akleman, V. Erturk, A. Altintas, and L. Sevgi, Fast integral
equation solutions: Application to mixed path terrain profiles and compar-
isons with parabolic equation method, Complex Comput. Netw., vol. 104,
Springer Proc. Phys., pp. 5563, Jan. 2006.
[50] A. Yagbasan, C. A. Tunc, V. B. Erturk, A. Altintas, and R. Mittra, Char-
acteristic basis function method for solving electromagnetic scattering
problems over rough terrain profiles, IEEE Trans. Antennas Propag.,
vol. 58, no. 5, pp. 15791589, May 2010.
[51] F. Akleman and L. Sevgi, A novel finite-difference time-domain wave
propagator, IEEE Trans. Antennas Propag., vol. 48, no. 5, pp. 839841,
May 2000.
[52] F. Akleman and L. Sevgi, Time and frequency domain wave propa-
gators, ACES J. Special Issue Comput. Electromagn. Techn. Wireless
Commun., vol. 15, no. 3, pp. 186201, Nov. 2000.
[53] M. O. Ozyalcin, F. Akleman, and L. Sevgi, A novel TLM-based time-
domain wave propagator, IEEE Trans. Antennas Propag., vol. 51, no. 7,
pp. 16791680, Jul. 2003.
[54] F. Akleman and L. Sevgi, Realistic surface modeling for a finite-
difference time-domain wave propagator, IEEE Trans. Antennas
Propag., vol. 51, no. 7, pp. 16751679, Jul. 2003.
Gkhan Apaydin (M08SM11) received the B.S.,
M.S., and Ph.D. degrees in electrical and electron-
ics engineering from Bogazici University, Istanbul,
Turkey, in 2001, 2003, and 2007, respectively.
From 2001 to 2005, he was a Teaching and
Research Assistant with Bogazici University. From
2005 to 2010, he was a Project and Research
Engineer with the Applied Research and Devel-
opment, University of Technology Zurich, Zurich,
Switzerland. Since 2010, he has been with Zirve
University, Gaziantep, Turkey. He has been working
on several research projects on electromagnetic (EM) propagation, the develop-
ment of a finite-element method for EM computation, positioning, filter design,
and related areas. He has (co)authored 14 journals and 27 conference papers
and technical reports at the Hochschule fr Technik Zrich, Zrich.
APAYDIN et al.: TWO-WAY FINITE-ELEMENT PARABOLIC EQUATION GROUNDWAVE PROPAGATION TOOL
Ozlem Ozgun (M05) received the B.Sc. and M.Sc.
degrees in electrical engineering from Bilkent Uni-
versity, Ankara, Turkey, in 1998 and 2001, respec-
tively, and the Ph.D. degree in electrical engineering
from the Middle East Technical University (METU),
Ankara, in 2007.
She is currently an Assistant Professor with
METUNorthern Cyprus Campus, Mersin, Turkey.
From 2007 to 2008, she was with the Electro-
magnetic Communication Laboratory, Pennsylvania
State University, University Park; ASELSAN Inc.,
Ankara, from 2004 to 2005; TUBITAK-UEKAE, National Research Institute of
Electronics and Cryptology, Ankara, from 2000 to 2004; and Bilkent University
from 1998 to 2000. Her main research interests include computational elec-
tromagnetics, finite-element method, domain decomposition, electromagnetic
(EM) propagation and scattering, metamaterials, and stochastic EM problems.
Mustafa Kuzuoglu (M92) received the B.Sc.,
M.Sc., and Ph.D. degrees in electrical engineer-
ing from the Middle East Technical University
(METU), Ankara, Turkey, in 1979, 1981, and 1986,
respectively.
He is currently a Professor with METU. His re-
search interests include computational electromag-
netics, inverse problems, and radars.
2899
Levent Sevgi (M99SM02F09) received the
Ph.D. degree from Istanbul Technical University,
Istanbul, Turkey, and Polytechnic Institute of New
York University, Brooklyn, in 1990. Prof. Leo Felsen
was his advisor.
He was with Istanbul Technical University from
1991 to 1998; TUBITAK-MRC, Information Tech-
nologies Research Institute, Gebze/Kocaeli, Turkey,
from 1999 to 2000; Weber Research Institute/
Polytechnic University of New York, from 1988 to
1990; Scientific Research Group of Raytheon Sys-
tems, Canada, from 1998 to 1999; and the Center for Defense Studies, ITUV-
SAM, from 1993 to 1998 and from 2000 to 2002. Since 2001, he has been with
Dogus University, Istanbul. He has been involved with complex electromag-
netic (EM) problems and systems for more than 20 years. His research study
has focused on propagation in complex environments, analytical and numerical
methods in electromagnetics, EMC/EMI modeling and measurement, radar
and integrated surveillance systems, surface-wave HF radars, finite-difference
time domain, TLM, finite-element method, split-step parabolic equation, and
Method of Moments techniques and their applications, radar cross-section
modeling, and bioelectromagnetics. He is also interested in novel approaches in
engineering education and teaching electromagnetics via virtual tools. He also
teaches popular science lectures such as science, technology, and society.
Prof. Sevgi is the Writer/Editor of the Testing ourselves Column in the
IEEE Antennas and Propagation Magazine, a member of the IEEE Antennas
and Propagation Society Education Committee, and the Scientific Literacy
Column Writer of the IEEE Region 8 Newsletter.