Testing Ourselves
Levent Sevgi
New Software Tool (GO+UTD) for
Visualization of Wave Propagation
Ozlem Ozgun
A
MATLAB-based tool, GO+UTD,
is presented with a user-friendly
graphical user interface (GUI) for
the simulation of electromagnetic wave
propagation and diffraction effects over
variable terrain by using the geometrical
optics (GO) and the uniform theory of
diffraction (UTD) techniques. The theo-
retical background, structure, capabilities,
and limitations of the tool are discussed
in detail in this article. The validation of
GO+UTD is performed via numerical
comparisons with the parabolic equa-
tion toolbox (PETOOL). GO+UTD is
a freely available tool that can be used
for research and educational purposes to
investigate wave phenomena with special
emphasis on diffraction effects. It can be
downloaded at http://www.ee.hacettepe.
edu.tr/~ozlem/.
INTRODUCTION
The efficient modeling of electro-
magnetic wave propagation over long
distances has long been of interest in
various areas, especially in modeling
and designing radar and communica-
tion systems, as well as in target detec-
tion and tracking, imaging, and remote
sensing. However, the solution of such
practical problems cannot generally
be achieved by the exact solution of
Digital Object Identifier 10.1109/MAP.2016.2541600
Date of publication: 1 June 2016
IEEE Antennas & Propagation Magazine
editor’s Note
In this issue of IEEE Antennas and Propagation Magazine, the “Testing Ourselves” column
features an article by Dr. Ozlem Ozgun that discusses a highly attractive MATLAB-based
virtual tool for the simulation of electromagnetic wave propagation and diffraction
over arbitrary terrain profiles by using the geometrical optics and the uniform theory of
diffraction techniques.
wave equations derived from Maxwell’s increases as the frequency or the wave-
equations. This  is due to the complex number increases. The main advan-
behavior of several wave phenomena— tages of high-frequency techniques
such as reflection, refraction, and dif- are twofold: memory requirements for
fraction—in a complex environment electrically large problems are usually
and due to the difficulty in satisfying not very high, and they provide physical
adequate numerical resolution for a insights into the problems under con-
small wavelength at a high frequency. If sideration. The main disadvantage of
the wavelength is short with respect to high-frequency techniques is that they
the overall size of the domain of inter- are not well suited to electrically small
est, the numerical methods that are objects and objects without canoni-
based on the direct solution of wave cal geometries.
equations—such as the finite element There are a larger number of high-
method, the method of moments, and frequency methods, some of which
the finite difference methods—become are GO [1], geometrical theory of dif-
costly because they require a large fraction (GTD) [2], UTD [3], physical
number of grid points to accurately optics (PO) [4], and physical theory of
model highly oscillatory wave behavior diffraction (PTD) [5]. They employ ray
on electrically small grids. Therefore, based approaches to model electromag-
approximate methods were developed netic wave reflection, refraction, and
to satisfy the wave equations approxi- diffraction. The classical GO approach
mately. Among these approximations, can describe incidence, reflection, and
high-frequency asymptotic techniques refraction, but it cannot include diffrac-
are ray optics based methods where tion effects. Joseph Keller extended the
the wave travels in a straight line in classical GO to deal with diffraction
the form of a ray and whose accuracy and consequently GTD was ­originated.
june 2016 1045-9243/16©2016IEEE 91
 Keller defined a diffraction coefficient tion problem having a complex ter-
for a perfectly conducting wedge by rain profile or objects, it is a difficult
asymptotically evaluating Arnold Som- task to apply high-frequency methods
merfeld’s diffraction integral. Since because the geometry must be rep-
GTD has singularities along the inci- resented as a set of some canonical
dent and reflection shadow boundaries geometries, and all possible multiple
(ISBs and RSBs), UTD was developed to reflections and diffractions must be
remove these singularities and to pro- considered. For example, even in a
vide smooth wave behavior along the simple problem where a knife-edge
shadow boundaries. The PO approach, is located above ground as shown
which is another ray-optics-based in Figure 1, the multiple bouncing
method that defines only incidence, of the rays must be handled by suc-
reflection, and refraction, estimates the cessive computation of GO and dif-
field and current on the surface and fracted fields according to different
integrates the current over the surface line-of-sight (LOS) conditions for
to determine the scattered field. The each point of interest in the computa-
PTD method, which complements PO tional domain. This successive process
and includes diffraction, is based on becomes cumbersome if one desires to
source-induced currents on the surface get coverage maps of field strength in
and employs nonuniform (fringe) edge a domain having an irregular terrain
currents to calculate the diffracted profile. Therefore, most of the appli-
fields. There are nice reviews in the cations of high-frequency methods
literature related to high-frequency deal with point-to-point construction
techniques and diffraction modeling of rays and do not consider the field
[6]–[10]. There is also a MATLAB- behavior in a complete domain. There
based tool for diffraction modeling of are some studies in the literature for
the single wedge problem [11]. propagation modeling where the ter-
As ment ioned prev iously, one rain is modeled as multiple knife-edg-
limitation of high-frequency meth- es and diffraction loss is computed
ods is that they are defined for some using high-frequency methods [12],
canonical geometries in a homo- [13]. In addition, high-frequency
geneous medium, and it is not easy methods were applied to compute the
to handle complex geometries. The radar cross section of objects in scat-
building block in diffraction methods tering problems [14], [15]. It is also
is a single, infinitely long wedge geom- worthwhile to mention that high-fre-
etry. There are also formulations for quency methods cannot accurately
other canonical shapes, such as half- handle inhomogeneous media and
plane, cylinder, cone, curved edge, variations in the refractive index of
and double wedge, which are indeed troposphere in propagation problems.
specialized or generalized forms of the Although ray-tracing algorithms can
wedge geometry. Hence, in a propaga- be used to follow the trajectory of rays
to model refraction effects (such as
ducting) according to Snell’s law, they
TX can show only qualitative effects, and
quantitative calculations are generally
not possible [16]. Especially, diffracted
1 fields cannot be included into the cal-
5
3 culation in such cases, and a special
A
6 B effort is needed to model diffraction.
2 4
7 Other than the high-frequency
methods, one effective and most-
ly used method to model refraction
FIGURE 1. Ray contributions for effects (both horizontally and verti-
different observation points (A, B)
cally varying atmospheric refraction)
in a single knife-edge problem over
ground. (Blue: direct, green: diffracted, and terrain irregularities in a propaga-
red: reflected or diffracted/reflected.) tion problem is the parabolic equation
92 june 2016
(PE) method [17], [18]. The standard
PE method is derived from the wave
equation by discarding the rapid-
ly varying phase term and finding a
reduced function that varies slowly in
range for propagating angles close to
the paraxial direction. Since it can be
solved by a marching type algorithm,
long-range propagation problems can
easily be solved. Two limitations of
the standard PE are that it considers
only forward propagating waves and
it is valid for small propagation angles
due to paraxial approximation. There-
fore, for short-range problems, as well
as the problems involving multiple
reflections and diffractions because of
hills and valleys with steep slopes, the
accuracy of the standard PE model
decreases. To model backward propa-
gating waves in an irregular terrain
profile, the two-way PE model was
proposed [19]. Afterwards, a MAT-
LAB-based tool, called PETOOL,
was developed to implement the two-
way PE algorithm that is capable of
modeling backward waves and wide
angle propagation angles [20]. The
PE approach is in general more effec-
tive than the high-frequency meth-
ods especially in long range problems.
However, although the PE method
can inherently model diffracted fields
up to some extent, it cannot separate
the diffracted field information from
the total field. Hence, the PE meth-
od does not allow the visualization of
the behavior of diffracted fields on a
coverage map. Other than PETOOL,
there are nice PE tools in the litera-
ture, which are used to model elec-
tromagnetic wave propagation over
ground [21]–[24].
In this article, a novel software tool,
called GO+UTD, which is developed
in MATLAB with a GUI and parallel
computing toolbox, is introduced for
the analysis and visualization of two-
dimensional radio wave propagation
over variable terrain in free-space by
using the GO and UTD principles.
This is indeed the first software pack-
age that provides a visual capability to
observe the field behavior in a propaga-
tion p­ roblem by using high-frequen-
cy techniques. It divides an arbitrary
IEEE Antennas & Propagation Magazine
t­errain into a number of segments and
calculates the ­incident, reflected, and
diffracted fields according to different Region 2:
LOS conditions. It applies an algorithm RS Incident Field
TX π–
B +Diffracted Field ISB
that deals with multiple reflection and ϕ0 ϕ0
R π+
diffraction effects through succes-
RX ϕ
sive implementation of GO and UTD. h r0
d1 d2 r
GO+UTD is a free- and open-source ϕ0
program that has been designed with TX
Q RX
a user-friendly GUI. The user can eas- Region 1:
ily create arbitrary terrain and enter h Incident Field
d1 Region 3:
+Reflected Field
and save all input/output parameters. +Diffracted Field
Diffracted Field
2π–α
The program displays the coverage Image
maps of propagation factor and loss. (a) (b)
One distinguished feature of this tool
is that it also displays the coverage map
of the diffracted fields due to sharp FIGURE 2. Modeling of reflected and diffracted rays: (a) GO and (b) UTD models for
edges, including multiple reflections the wedge structure.
of diffracted fields due to the ground.
The tool also displays this field infor-
mation on a range and altitude scale.
GO+UTD is designed to serve as an d 1 e - jkd2 fraction coefficient for soft and hard
u r = u inc at Q R s, h
analysis and design tool for propaga- d1 + d2 polarizations, given as follows [3]:
  
tion researchers, engineers, and stu- - jk^ d 1 + d 2h
= u 0 R s, h e , (3) -jr/4
dents to gain intuition and physical d1 + d2 D s, h = - e
2n 2rk
insight about the wave phenomena in
# ';cot c
r - p-
propagation problems. where u 0 is the amplitude of the inci- m F (kLg + p -)
2n
dent field, k = 2r/m is the wavenum-
m F (kLg - p -)E,
r + p-
THEORETICAL BACKGROUND ber (m is the wavelength), and R s, h is + cot c
2n
the reflection coefficient of the surface
" ;cot c
r - p+
GO for soft and hard polarizations, as m F (kLg + p +)
2n
The GO method is based on the assump- given below:
m F (kLg - p +)E1,
r + p+
tion that electromagnetic waves travel in + cot c
2n
  R s, h = '
- 1, soft (horizontal)
straight lines in the form of rays, and they .(4)
+ 1, hard (vertical) (6)
are reflected from the illuminated sur-
faces of an object. It ignores the diffrac- where (−) and (+) are for soft and
tion effects and deals only with incident UTD hard polarizations, respectively, and
and reflected fields. Assume that a cylin- Assume that a single perfectly con- n = a/r. Furthermore, p + = { + { 0,
drically diverging line source is above a ducting wedge is suspended in a p - = { - { 0 and F (X) is the Fresnel
surface as shown in Figure 2(a). The total homogeneous medium as shown in integral given as follows:
field ^ u t h at a receiver point in the illu- Figure 2(b). The tip-to-source distance
3
minated part is determined by the sum and the source angle are denoted by r0
#
2
F (X) = 2j X e jX e - jx dx, (7)
of the direct/incident field ^ u inc h and the and { 0, respectively; whereas the tip-
X
reflected field ^ u r h emanating from the to-observer distance and the observa-
image source as follows: tion angle are represented by r and {,
respectively. The wedge exterior angle
  u t = $ u + u above surface , (1)
inc r
a can be set to 2r to model the knife- TX
0 below surface
edge. But, it is set to a ! 2r in gen-
where u denotes the electric or mag- eral for more realistic hill-type obstacles.
netic field in horizontal (soft) or verti- The diffracted field in UTD is expressed
cal (hard) polarizations, respectively. as follows:
Here, the incident and reflected fields - jkr
are expressed as follows (assuming e - j~t u ds, h = u inc D s, h e , (5)
r
time dependence):
- jkr
where u inc is the incident field at the FIGURE 3. GO+UTD modeling over
u inc
= u 0 e , (2) tip of the wedge, and D s, h is the dif- irregular terrain.
r

IEEE Antennas & Propagation Magazine june 2016 93

 and L and g ! are computed as ­follows:
L = rr0 ,
r + r0
2nrN ! - p
g ! ^ph = 2 cos 2 c
2 for small f " 0.
where N ! = ^! r + ph 2nr are the
integers that most closely satisfy this
expression. The cotangent functions in
(6) possess singularities at the shadow
boundaries and, hence, they can be
replaced by the following expression:
FIGURE 4. GO+UTD main window.
TABLE 1. INPUT PARAMETERS OF GO+UTD.
Domain Parameters:
Antenna Parameters:
Terrain Parameters:
94
r!b
cot c m F ^ kLg ! p h .
2n
 n 6 2rkL sgn ^f h - 2kLfe -jr/4@ e -jr/4,
(9)

m, (8)
GAUSSIAN BEAM
Standard high-frequency methods
are formulated based on line-source
illumination. However, the radiation
pattern of a practical antenna can be
considered for more realistic propaga-
Maximum range (km)
Maximum altitude (m)
Range step (m): horizontal step size
Altitude step (m): vertical step size
Polarization (horizontal or vertical)
Antenna type (Gaussian or line source)
3-dB beamwidth (degree) (if Gaussian)
Elevation angle (degree) (if Gaussian)
Antenna height (m)
Frequency (MHz)
None (flat surface) or terrain
If terrain:
  Interpolation type (none, linear)
 Number of points: Number of points
to be placed on top graphics to define
the terrain profile
 Range and height values for terrain points
defined in list boxes (see Figure 4)
june 2016
tion problems. Gaussian antenna is
 one of the widely used antenna types
in practice. To model Gaussian beam
in GO+UTD, the incident field in the
GO and UTD sections is replaced by
the following ­expression assuming that
the beam is pointing along an arbi-
trary g -direction, which is the axis
of propagation, and t indicates the
perpendicular distance from the axis
of propagation [4].
u inc (t, g) =
u 0 w 0 exp =- 2 G
2
t

w ^gh w ^gh

exp =- jkg - jk + j tan -1 G,
t2 g
2R ^g h g0
(10)
In this expression, u 0 is the amplitude;
w 0 is the beam radius at g = 0 (beam
waist radius), which can be expressed
as w 0 = 2 ln 2 / ^ k sin ^i bw /2 hh, where
i bw is the beamwidth of the antenna;
g 0 = rw 20 /m i s t he R ayleig h d i s-
tance; R ^g h = g + g 20 /g is the beam
radius as a function of position; and
w is the beam radius defined as
w = w 0 61 + ^g/g 0 h2@ .
0 .5
IMPLEMENTATION OF GO+UTD
FOR IRREGULAR TERRAIN
The GO+UTD algorithm over an
irregular terrain is based on the con-
secutive implementation of the GO
and UTD methods described above.
The main highlights of the algorithm
are given below:
1) First, the terrain is divided into a
number of linear line segments,
and the sharp tips are identified, as
shown in Figure 3. The points that
are defined during the terrain con-
struction are considered as the
possible tips of the terrain.
2) Then, the direct/incident ray is
computed for each illuminated
point within the domain according
to LOS conditions.
3) Then, line segments that are illumi-
nated by the actual source are deter-
mined, and an image source is found
for each line segment. If the seg-
ments have the image sources at the
same point (if the segments are on
the same line), these segments are
IEEE Antennas & Propagation Magazine
 10

0
250 PEC Wall 250 PEC Wall
–10
200 200
Height (m)

–20
150 150
–30
100 100
–40
SSPE
50 GO + UTD 50 –50
(H-pol)
(H-pol)
TX TX
0 0 –60
0 2 4 6 8 0 2 4 6 8
Range (km) Range (km)
(a) (b)
10

250 250 0
PEC Wall PEC Wall
–10
200 200
Height (m)

–20
150 150
–30
100 100
–40

50 50 SSPE
GO + UTD –50
(V-pol)
TX (V-pol) TX
0 0 –60
0 2 4 6 8 0 2 4 6 8
Range (km) Range (km)
(c) (d)

20 20

10 10
Propagation Factor (dB)

Propagation Factor (dB)

0 0

–10 –10
–20 –20

–30 –30
SSPE H-pol SSPE V-pol
–40 –40
GO+UTD Height = 200 m GO+UTD Height = 200 m
–50 –50
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Range (km) Range (km)
(e) (f)

FIGURE 5. An infinite-height wall at 8-km range illuminated by a line-source at 20-m height: (a) PF map of GO+UTD in
horizontal polarization, (b) PF map of SSPE in horizontal polarization, (c) PF map of GO+UTD in vertical polarization, (d) PF map
of SSPE in vertical polarization, (e) PF versus range at 200-m height in horizontal polarization, and (f ) PF versus range at 200-m
height in vertical polarization. (f = 300 MHz, range step size = 25 m, and height step size = 0.5 m.)

grouped, and a single image source
is assigned for them. These image
sources behave as the source for
reflected rays. Reflected rays are com-
puted by radiating these image
sources by considering LOS condi-
tions. These rays correspond to first- s­egments. Second-order reflected
order reflected rays. rays are computed by radiating these
4) Similar to step 3, line segments that image sources by considering LOS
are illuminated by the image sources conditions. This process continues for
are determined, and new image higher order reflections until the
sources are found for these line reflected rays do not bounce from the

IEEE Antennas & Propagation Magazine june 2016 95

 300 300 10
GO+UTD SSPE
250 250 0

–10
200 200
Height (m)

–20
150 150
TX –30
TX
100 100
–40

50 50 –50

0 0 –60
0 2 4 6 8 0 2 4 6 8
Range (km) Range (km)
(a) (b)

Diffracted Field (mag) ×10–3

300 10
10 SSPE
9
250 GO+UTD
Propagation Factor (dB)
8 0
200 7
–10
Height (m)

6
150 5 –20
4
100 –30
3

50 2
–40
1 Height = 50 m
0 –50
0 2 4 6 8 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Range (km) Range (km)
(c) (d)
300 300
SSPE SSPE
250 GO+UTD 250 GO+UTD

Range = 2 km Range = 6 km
200 200
Height (m)

Height (m)

150 150

100 100

50 50

0 0
–70 –60 –50 –40 –30 –20 –10 0 10 –70 –60 –50 –40 –30 –20 –10 0 10
Propagation Factor (dB) Propagation Factor (dB)
(e) (f)

FIGURE 6. A wedge structure illuminated by a line-source at 120-m height for horizontal polarization: (a) PF map of GO+UTD,
(b) PF map of SSPE, (c) DF map of GO+UTD, (d) PF versus range at 50-m height, (e) PF versus height at 2-km range, and (f ) PF
versus height at 6-km range. (f = 300 MHz, range step size = 25 m, and height step size = 0.5 m.)

terrain and escape from the domain,
or until the contribution of the
reflected rays becomes negligible
according to a certain threshold crite-
rion (which is set to 10−2) comparing
the fields [i.e., u n - u n - 1 where u n angles, diffracted fields are com-
and u n - 1 are the superposed fields puted and superposed according to
at the nth and (n - 1)st steps]. LOS conditions.
5) For the identified tips that are 6) The tips of the wedges are consid-
modeled as wedges with certain ered as new source locations, and

96 june 2016 IEEE Antennas & Propagation Magazine

 300 300 10
GO+UTD SSPE
250 TX 250 TX 0

–10
200 200
Height (m)

–20
150 150
–30
100 100
–40

50 50 –50

0 0 –60
0 2 4 6 8 0 2 4 6 8
Range (km) Range (km)
(a) (b)

Diffracted Field (mag) ×10–3

300
14 10
250
0
Propagation Factor (dB)
12
200 10 –10
Height (m)

8 –20
150
6 –30
100
4 –40
50 2 SSPE
–50
Height = 80 m GO+UTD
0 –60
0 2 4 6 8 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Range (km) Range (km)
(c) (d)
300 300
SSPE
250 250 GO+UTD
Range = 6.5 km
200 200
Height (m)

Height (m)

150 150

100 100
Range = 2.5 km
50 SSPE 50
GO+UTD
0 0
–60 –50 –40 –30 –20 –10 0 10 –50 –40 –30 –20 –10 0 10
Propagation Factor (dB) Propagation Factor (dB)
(e) (f)

FIGURE 7. The double tip structure illuminated by a line-source at 250 m height for horizontal polarization: (a) PF map of
GO+UTD, (b) PF map of SSPE, (c) DF map of GO+UTD, (d) PF versus range at 80-m height, (e) PF versus height at 2.5-km range,
and (f ) PF versus height at 6.5-km range. (f = 300 MHz, range step size = 25 m, and height step size = 0.5 m.)

the reflected rays of the diffracted
rays are computed by using image
sources similar to the steps 3 and 4.
7) Finally, the direct, reflected, and
diffracted fields are superposed to
find the total field.
GO+UTD SOFTWARE
The GO+UTD software package has
been developed in MATLAB with a user-
friendly GUI. The package has both par-
allel and serial versions. To accelerate the
computations, the parfor (parallel for-
loop) command of the parallel computing
toolbox in MATLAB has been employed
in the parallel version. In this way, some
of the jobs that can be performed at the
same time are sent to multiple clusters
and run in parallel. The main file to run

IEEE Antennas & Propagation Magazine june 2016 97

 300 300 10
GO+UTD SSPE
250 250 0

–10
200 200
Height (m)

–20
150 150
–30
100 100
–40
TX TX
50 50 –50

0 0 –60
0 2 4 6 8 0 2 4 6 8
Range (km) Range (km)
(a) (b)

Diffracted Field (mag) ×10–3

300 15 300
SSPE
250 GO+UTD
250
Range = 1.5 km
200 10 200
Height (m)

Height (m)

150 150

100 5 100

50 50

0 0 0
0 2 4 6 8 –60 –50 –40 –30 –20 –10 0 10
Range (km) Propagation Factor (dB)
(c) (d)
20 20
Height = 200 m SSPE
10 10
GO+UTD
Propagation Factor (dB)

Propagation Factor (dB)

0
0 Height = 50 m
–10
–10 –20
–20 –30
–40
–30
–50
–40 SSPE
–60
GO+UTD
–50 –70
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Range (km) Range (km)
(e) (f)

FIGURE 8. A double wedge structure illuminated by a line-source at 60 m height for horizontal polarization: (a) PF map of
GO+UTD, (b) PF map of SSPE, (c) DF map of GO+UTD, (d) PF versus height at 1.5-km range, (e) PF versus range at 200-m height,
and (f ) PF versus range at 50-m height. (f = 300 MHz, range step size = 25 m, and height step size = 0.5 m.)

the program is goutd.m. The main win-
dow is shown in Figure 4. On the left,
there are three panels [domain, terrain,
and transmitter (TX) antenna] at which
the input parameters are defined by the
user. The input parameters are given in
Table 1. In specifying a terrain profile,
the user can locate a number of points
on the top graphics by clicking the locate
points button or can define the terrain
points manually by entering the values
into the range-height list boxes by load-
ing a text file. Once the terrain points
are specified, the terrain profile is cre-
ated by performing a linear interpola-
tion between two consecutive terrain
points along range. If the interpolation
method is chosen to be none, the terrain

98 june 2016 IEEE Antennas & Propagation Magazine

 300 300 10
GO+UTD SSPE
250 TX 250 TX 0

–10
200 200
Height (m)

–20
150 150
–30
100 100
–40

50 50 –50

0 0 –60
0 2 4 6 8 0 2 4 6 8
Range (km) Range (km)
(a) (b)

Diffracted Field (mag) ×10–3

300 300
18 SSPE
16 250 GO+UTD
250
14 Range = 5 km
200 200
12
Height (m)

Height (m)

10 150
150
8
100 100
6
4
50 50
2
0 0
0 2 4 6 8 –60 –50 –40 –30 –20 –10 0 10 20
Range (km) Propagation Factor (dB)
(c) (d)
20 20
Height = 25 m SSPE Height = 130 m
10 10
GO+UTD
Propagation Factor (dB)

Propagation Factor (dB)

0
0
–10
–10 –20
–20 –30
–40
–30
–50 SSPE
–40
–60 GO+UTD
–50 –70
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Range (km) Range (km)
(e) (f)

FIGURE 9. Two steep-edged structures illuminated by a line-source at 250 m height for horizontal polarization: (a) PF map of
GO+UTD, (b) PF map of SSPE, (c) DF map of GO+UTD, (d) PF versus height at 5-km range, (e) PF versus range at 25-m height,
and (f ) PF versus range at 130-m height. (f = 300 MHz, range step size = 25 m, and height step size = 0.5 m.)

profile is generated as a collection of the analysis results. After the execution diffracted field (DF) map by clicking
knife-edges. of the code is finished, the 3-D map the appropriate button in the plot type
After defining the input parame- of the propagation factor (PF) is plot- panel. When the mouse is moved over
ters, the user must click on the run ted on the bottom graphics. The user the bottom graphics, the values (range,
button to perform the code and to see can switch to the path loss (PL) or the height, PF, PL, and DF) automatically

IEEE Antennas & Propagation Magazine june 2016 99

 300 300 10
GO+UTD SSPE
250 250 0

–10
200 200
Height (m)

–20
150 TX 150 TX
–30
100 100
–40

50 50 –50

0 0 –60
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Range (km) Range (km)
(a) (b)

Diffracted Field (mag)

300 0.015 20
SSPE
10
250 GO+UTD
Propagation Factor (dB) 0
200 0.01 –10
Height (m)

–20
150
–30
100 0.05 –40
–50
50
–60 Height = 100 m

0 0 –70
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Range (km) Range (km)
(c) (d)
300 300
SSPE SSPE
250 GO+UTD 250 GO+UTD
Range = 5.5 km
200 200
Height (m)

Height (m)

150 150

100 100

50 50
Range = 2.5 km

0 0
–70 –60 –50 –40 –30 –20 –10 0 10 –70 –60 –50 –40 –30 –20 –10 0 10
Propagation Factor (dB) Propagation Factor (dB)
(e) (f)

FIGURE 10. An irregular terrain illuminated by a line-source at 150-m height for horizontal polarization: (a) PF map of GO+UTD,
(b) PF map of SSPE, (c) DF map of GO+UTD, (d) PF versus range at 100-m height, (e) PF versus height at 2.5-km range, and (f )
PF versus height at 5.5-km range. (f = 300 MHz, range step size = 25 m, and height step size = 0.5 m.)

appear in the cursor point panel. The
user can also plot the two-dimension-
al (2-D) graphics (PF/PL/DF versus
range for fixed altitude, or PF/PL/DF
versus altitude for fixed range) either
by entering the values into the boxes in It is useful to note that the speed of
2-D graphics panel, or by right-clicking the program is based on the physics of the
the mouse on the desired point of the problem, the number of clusters available
3-D map. The colorbar panel adjusts in the computer, as well as the altitude
the colorbar scale of the 3-D map. and range step sizes that determine the

100 june 2016 IEEE Antennas & Propagation Magazine

 TX TX
300 300 5
0
250 250
–5

200 200 –10

Height (m)

–15
150 150
–20
100 100 –25
–30
50 50
GO+UTD –35
SSPE
0 0 –40
0 0.5 1 1.5 0 0.5 1 1.5
Range (km) Range (km)
(a) (b)

FIGURE 11. A finite-length wall at 0.4 km and an infinitely long wall at 1.5 km illuminated by a Gaussian source at 300-m height
for horizontal polarization: (a) PF map of GO+UTD and (b) PF map of SSPE. (f = 3 GHz, beamwidth = 0.5°, elevation angle = 8° ,
range step size = 10 m, and height step size = 0.5 m).

300 300 5
GO+UTD SSPE 0
250 250
–5

200 200 –10

Height (m)

–15
150 150
–20
100 100 –25
–30
50 50
–35
TX TX
0 0 –40
0 0.5 1 1.5 0 0.5 1 1.5
Range (km) Range (km)
(a) (b)

FIGURE 12. A double tip structure illuminated by a Gaussian source at 100-m height for horizontal polarization: (a) PF map of GO+UTD
and (b) PF map of SSPE. (f = 3 GHz, beamwidth = 0.5°, elevation angle = -10°, range step size = 10 m, and height step size = 0.5 m.)

resolution within the domain. If the prob-
lem exhibits strong multiple effects, the
computation time increases. To acceler-
ate the tool, the parfor command of the
parallel computing toolbox in MATLAB
is used in the parallel version.
NUMERICAL EXAMPLES
This section demonstrates the test results
of the GO+UTD tool in different sce-
narios. To validate the tool, the results
are compared with those of the split-step
parabolic equation (SSPE) technique
that was implemented in PETOOL [20].
The first example involves an infinitely
long perfectly conducting (PEC) wall at
8 km above the ground. A line source
is located at 20 m. The frequency is
300  MHz. In this scenario, only inci-
dent and reflected fields contribute to
the total field, and diffracted fields do
not exist. There are at most second-order
reflections, such that the rays are reflect-
ed from the ground and then the wall, or
vice versa. The results for both horizon-
tal (H) and vertical (V) polarizations are
shown in Figure 5. In the second exam-
ple, a wedge is located above ground as
shown in Figure 6, and it is illuminated
by a line source at 120 m. The frequency
is 300 MHz. In addition to the incident
and reflected rays, diffraction mecha-
nism occurs at the tip of the wedge. To
the left part of the wedge, strong inter-
ference of incident and reflected rays
is observed. To the right side of the
wedge, diffracted fields dominate, and
the interference of incident, diffracted,
and diffracted/reflected rays are clear-
ly observed. The behavior of diffract-
ed fields is also shown in Fig­­ure 6(c).
The next four examples are similarly

IEEE Antennas & Propagation Magazine june 2016 101

 300 300 5
GO+UTD SSPE
0
250 250
–5
200 200
–10
Height (m)

150 150 –15

–20
100 TX 100 TX
–25
50 50
–30

0 0 –35
0 0.5 1 1.5 0 0.5 1 1.5
Range (km) Range (km)
(a) (b)

FIGURE 13. A wedge structure illuminated by a Gaussian source at 100-m height for horizontal polarization: (a) PF map of GO+UTD and
(b) PF map of SSPE. (f = 300 MHz, beamwidth = 0.5°, elevation angle = -10°, range step size = 25 m, and height step size = 0.5 m.)

presented in Figures 7–10 for different AUTHOR INFORMATION

propagation scenarios. In Figures 7 and
8, the field is diffracted from two tips of
the terrain profile. Among these exam-
ples, the most challenging simulation
in terms of the computational load is
presented in Figure 9, where the ter-
rain has steep edges and four diffraction
tips because multiple reflections (almost
resonance behavior) occur between the
two structures. Apart from well-defined
geometries, an irregular terrain profile
is considered in Figure 10. In all cases,
the results compare well and validate the
accuracy of GO+UTD.
The last three scenarios consid-
er a Gaussian source with beamwidth
of 0.5° and are demonstrated in
Figures 11–13. In Figure 11, an antenna
with elevation angle of 8° illuminates
a finite-length wall at 0.4 km and an
infinitely long wall at 1.5 km. The fre-
quency is 3 GHz, and the polarization is
horizontal. The multiple reflections of
the beam are clearly observed. In Fig­
ure 12, the antenna has an elevation
angle of -10°, and it is located at a height
of 10 m. The incident field is both reflect-
ed and diffracted around the sharp tip
of the structure. Finally, in Figure 13,
the antenna has an elevation angle of 0°,
and it is located at a height of 100 m. The
frequency is 300 MHz in this simulation.
The results show good agreement among
GO+UTD and reference results, which
demonstrate the validity of the program.
The MATLAB-based GO+UTD
program has been introduced
for an electromagnetic wave
propagation problem over an
arbitrary terrain profile in a
homogeneous atmosphere.
CONCLUSIONS
The MATLAB-based GO+UTD pro-
gram has been introduced for an elec-
tromagnetic wave propagation problem
over an arbitrary terrain profile in a
homogeneous atmosphere. The pro-
gram is based on the consecutive
implementation of the GO and UTD
techniques. The program structure
and the GUI capabilities of the pro-
gram have been discussed. The per-
formance of the program has been
validated by comparing its results
with reference results through various
numerical simulations. The program
is expected to serve as a user-friendly
tool that provides physical insight about form geometrical theory of diffraction for an edge
the wave phenomena. The next version
of the program will aim at modeling
lossy ground surfaces and mixed-type
ground surfaces having different mate-
rial parameters. In addition, different
diffraction algorithms other than UTD
will be investigated and included into
the program.
Ozlem Ozgun (ozlem@ee.
hacettepe.edu.tr) received
her B.S. and M.S. degrees in
electrical and electronics
engineering from Bilkent
University, Ankara, Turkey, in
1998 and 2001, respectively,
and her Ph.D. degree in elec-
trical and electronics engi-
neering from Middle East
Technical University, Ankara, in 2007.
She is currently an associate professor at
Hacettepe University, Ankara. Her
main research interests include compu-
tational electromagnetics, finite element
method, domain decomposition, elec-
tromagnetic propagation and scattering,
transformation electromagnetics, and
stochastic electromagnetic problems.
She is a Senior Member of the IEEE.
REFERENCES
[1] M. Kline and I. Kay, Electromagnetic Theory
and Geometrical Optics. New York: Wiley, 1965.
[2] J. B. Keller, “Geometrical theory of diffraction,”
J. Opt. Soc. Amer., vol. 52, no. 2, pp. 116–130, 1962.
[3] R. G. Kouyoumjian and P. H. Pathak, “A uni-
in a perfectly conducting surface,” Proc. IEEE, vol.
62, no. 11, pp. 1448–1461, 1974.
[4] A. K. Bhattacharyya, High Frequency Electro-
magnetic Techniques Recent Advances and Applica-
tions. New York: Wiley, 1995.
[5] P. Y. Ufimtsev, Theory of Edge Diffraction in Elec-
tromagnetics, Encino, CA: Tech Science Press, 2003
[6] C. A. Balanis, L. Sevgi, and P. Y. Ufimtsev, “Fifty
years of high frequency diffraction,” Int. J. RF Micro-
wave Comput.-Aided Eng., vol. 23, no. 4, pp. 394–
402, 2013.

102 june 2016 IEEE Antennas & Propagation Magazine

[7] G. Pelosi, Y. Rahmat-Samii, and J. L. Volakis,
“High-frequency techniques in diffraction theory:
50 years of achievements in GTD, PTD, and relat-
ed approaches,” IEEE Antennas Propagat. Mag.,
vol. 55, no. 3, pp. 17–19, 2013.
[8] P. Ya. Ufimtsev, “The 50-year anniversary of the
PTD: Comments on the PTD’s origin and develop-
ment,” IEEE Antennas Propagat. Mag., vol. 55, no. 3,
pp. 18–28, 2013.
[9] Y. Rahmat-Samii, “GTD, UTD, UAT, and STD:
A historical revisit and personal observations,”
IEEE Antennas Propagat. Mag., vol. 55, no. 3, pp.
29–40, 2013.
[10] F. Hacıvelioğlu, L. Sevgi, and P. Y. Ufimtsev,
“Electromagnetic wave scattering from a wedge
with perfectly reflecting boundaries: Analysis of
asymptotic techniques,” IEEE Antennas Propagat.
Mag., vol. 53, no. 3, pp. 232–253, 2011.
[11] F. Hacivelioglu, M. A. Uslu, and L. Sevgi, “A
MATLAB-based virtual tool for the electromag-
netic wave scattering from a perfectly reflecting
wedge,” IEEE Antennas Propagat. Mag., vol. 53,
no. 6, pp. 234–243, 2011.
[12] L. E. Vogler, “An attenuation function for mul-
tiple knife edge diffraction,” Radio Sci., vol. 17, no.
6, pp. 1541–1546, 1982.
[13] J. H. Whitteker, “A series solution for diffrac-
tion over terrain modeled as bridged knife edges,”
Radio Sci., vol. 28, no. 4, pp. 487–500, 1993.
[14] G. Cakir and L. Sevgi, “Radar cross-section
(RCS) analysis of high frequency surface wave
radar targets,” Turk. J. Elec. Eng. Comp. Sci., vol.
18, no. 3, pp. 457–467, 2010.
[15] A. Altintas, P. H. Pathak, and W. D. Burnside,
“Electromagnetic scattering from a class of open-
ended waveguide discontinuities,” NASA STI/
Recon Technical Report N, vol. 87, 27874, 1986.
[16] G. Brussaard and P. A. Watson, Atmospheric
Modelling and Millimeter Wave Propagation. New
York: Springer, 1994.
[17] M. F. Levy, Parabolic Equation Methods for
Electromagnetic Wave Propagation. London: IET,
2000.
[18] L. Sevgi, Complex Electromagnetic Problems
and Numerical Simulation Approaches. Hoboken,
NJ: Wiley, 2003.
[19] O. Ozgun, “Recursive two-way parabolic equa-
tion approach for modeling terrain effects in tropo-
spheric propagation,” IEEE Trans. Antennas Propa-
gat., vol. 57, no. 9, pp. 2706–2714, 2009.
[20] O. Ozgun, G. Apaydin, M. Kuzuoglu, and
L. Sevgi, “PETOOL: MATLAB-based one-way
and two-way split-step parabolic equation tool
for radiowave propagation over variable terrain,”
Comput. Phys., vol. 182, pp. 2638–2654, Dec.
2011.
[21] G. Apaydın and L. Sevgi, “MATLAB-based
FEM-parabolic equation tool for path loss calcula-
tions along multi-mixed-terrain paths,” IEEE Anten-
nas Propagat. Mag., vol. 56, no. 3, pp. 221–236,
June 2014.
[22] G. Apaydın and L. Sevgi, “A novel split-step
parabolic equation package for surface wave propa-
gation prediction along multi-mixed irregular ter-
rain paths,” IEEE Antennas Propagat. Mag., vol. 52,
no. 4, pp. 90–97, Aug. 2010.
[23] F. Akleman and L. Sevgi, “A novel MoM- and
SSPE-based groundwave propagation field strength
prediction simulator,” IEEE Antennas Propagat.
Mag., vol. 49, no. 5, pp. 69–82, Oct. 2007.
[24] L. Sevgi, Ç. Uluıs¸ ık, and F. Akleman, “A MAT-
LAB-based two-dimensional parabolic equation
radiowave propagation package,” IEEE Antennas
Propagat. Mag., vol. 47, no. 4, pp. 184–195, Aug.
2005.


Turnstile (continued from page 70)

Answers to the Annual Quiz

1) b) Polarized light. 5) c) Silicon.

Source: T. Commissariat. (2016, Feb. 18). Polarized light throws
birds’ magnetic compass off course. Physics World. [Online].
Available: http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/2016/
feb/03/polarized-light-throws-birds-magnetic-compass-off-
course
2) c) Seawater fountain.
Source: J. Morra. (2016, Feb. 18). Seawater fountain transmits
and receives signals like an antenna. Microwaves and RF.
[Online]. Available: http://mwrf.com/systems/seawater-
fountain-transmits-and-receives-signals-antenna?NL=MWRF-
06&Issue=MWRF-06_20160216_MWRF-06_306&sfvc4enews=
42&cl=article_2_b&utm_rid=CPG05000000616082&utm_
campaign=5064&utm_medium=email&elq2=9a88636cb06e4
c8995aea9345c0e5a72
3) c) The Dirac equation.
Source: M. Hogenboom. (2016, Feb. 18). You decide: What is
the most beautiful equation? BBC. [Online]. Available: http://
www.bbc.com/earth/story/20160120-the-most-beautiful-
equation-is-the-dirac-equation
4) a) Magnetostriction.
Source: (2016, Feb. 18). Waving good buy? The Economist.
[Online]. Available: http://www.economist.com/news/science-
and-technology/21677612-hitherto-obscure-piece-physics-
may-be-secret-ocean-power
Digital Object Identifier 10.1109/MAP.2016.2541607
Date of publication: 1 June 2016
Source: H. Johnston. (2016, Feb. 18). Silicon quantum logic
gate is a first. Physics World. [Online]. Available: http://
physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/2015/oct/09/silicon-
quantum-logic-gate-is-a-first
6) a) Magnetic levitation.
Source: J. Nicas. (2016, Feb. 19). Hyperloop race picks up
speed. The Wall Street Journal. [Online]. Available: http://www.
wsj.com/articles/hyperloop-race-picks-up-speed-1453426042
7) b) Leonhard Euler.
Source: (2016, Feb. 19). The master of them all. The Economist.
[Online]. Available: http://www.economist.com/news/books-
and-arts/21685435-impressive-life-impressive-man-master-
them-all
8) c) Globular clusters.
Source: (2016, Feb. 19). Cluster analysis. The Economist.
[Online]. Available: http://www.economist.com/news/science-
and-technology/21685439-good-place-look-little-green-men-
where-look-aliens
9) c) 200 kW.
Source: (2016, Feb. 19). Skating with McFly. The Economist.
[Online]. Available: http://www.economist.com/news/science-
and-technology/21685441-rocket-scientists-have-come-up-
hoverboard-works-skating-mcfly
10) b) Quantum physics.
Source: R. Crease. (2016, Feb. 19). Quantum-inspired art.
Physics World. [Online]. Available: http://physicsworld.com/
cws/article/print/2015/feb/12/critical-point-quantum-
inspired-art

IEEE Antennas & Propagation Magazine june 2016 103