Developing a rain fade model involves mathematical analysis of rain attenuation phenomena by reasoning and cause-based interaction.
Satellite communication is playing major role in the back-haul data network. In addition, satellite communication links can be used to enhance the existing telecommunication infrastructure in 5G and beyond networks [1][2][3], and satellite communication also has enormous applications for unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) and the Internet of Things (IoT) [4]. Because of radio congestion and broader bandwidth requirements, satellites switch to higher-frequency (33–75 GHz and 75–110 GHz) bands. However, atmospheric disturbances wreak havoc on these frequencies, causing attenuation, scintillation, and depolarization, lowering service efficiency [5]. Rain is one of the significant factors that creates attenuation on the propagation of electromagnetic waves. This effect has directed the interest of researchers in reducing the effect of rain on radio waves by controlling the transmitted power. Thus, multiple studies have been conducted on this globally. The research on rain attenuation is used to predict rain attenuation in various geographical areas over a wide range of frequency bands, especially for frequency bands over 10 GHz, and determine a suitable model that can predict attenuation. To develop such a model, the factors that impact attenuation first need to be determined. Some of the factors are related to the infrastructure setup (latitude, longitude, antenna size, antenna height, elevation angle, operating frequency) and some of them are related to the rain events such as wind flow, humidity, wind direction, and temperature.
It may be possible to evaluate the attenuation of atmospheric elements such as wind flow and the effect of the direction of wind flow on propagated signal attenuation separately, but it is conventional to consider attenuation due to other factors such as temperature, wind flow, and wind direction, along with rain attenuation. Even though rain attenuation issues were noticed in the middle of the last century, the problem has not yet been efficiently addressed. Besides the necessity to transfer a massive volume of data due to the fourth industrialization, the lower frequency bands are getting exhausted. This has led researchers to develop rain attenuation models that can work with higher frequency bands such as Q/V, W, and E-bands. For example, the application of a rain attenuation model for slant link, where the operating frequency is at 75 GHz, was assessed in [6][7]. Several models of rain attenuation have been proposed in the literature, and scientists are aiming to refine existing models for local climate conditions [8][9][10][11][12][13].
Precise rain attenuation determinations are critical for preparing the link budget, maintaining communication efficiency, and the architecture of the system. In addition, following probable rain attenuation determined by the rain attenuation model, the over- or underestimation of the power of the transmitter can be avoided. Radio-frequency engineers must comply with the permissible power transmission specifications in compliance with spectrum management rules for each frequency band. If the engineers do not follow such power regulations, the transmitted signal power may interfere with another frequency band, e.g., neighbor channel, which may disturb the neighboring telecommunication equipment. Thus, by deploying a rain attenuation model in Earth–space telecommunication, such disturbance can also be avoided. In the literature, there is currently a lack of survey papers addressing the issues and algorithms of slant link fade prediction models, which inspired us to write this survey paper. In Table 1, some of the existing survey papers are presented, which are not adequate for covering the slant link fade prediction models.
Ref. | Survey Concentrations |
---|---|
[14] | The results show that rain attenuation in horizontal polarization is slightly larger than that in vertical polarization. A differential coupling-based compensation was recommended to reduce the rain attenuation effects on polarization in the depolarization processes. |
[15] | In this survey, the artificial-neural-network-based models were classified based on input parameters. In addition, the accuracy of the artificial-neural-network-based models was accessed through a comparative study. |
[16] | Rain attenuation in a satellite system is more severe than in a terrestrial system, and for a good model, it should be implemented into the model through local climatic elements. |
Tpe | Ref. | Slant or Both | Rain Structure | Rainfall Rate | Frequency | Angle(Earth Station) | Rain Height | Melting Layer Height | Time Series |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
EMPI | [28] | Slant | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✗ | ✓ | ✓ |
[25] | Slant | ✗ | ✓ | ✓ ‡ | ✓⋏ | ✓ | ✗ | ✗ | |
[29] | Slant | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✗ | ✗ | |
[24] | Slant | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ ⋄ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | |
[20] | Slant | ✓ ◃ | ✗ | ✗ | ✗ | ✓ | ✓ | ✗ | |
[27] | Slant | ✓ | ✓ | ✗ | ✓ | ✓ ▹ | ✗ | ✗ | |
[26] | Slant | ✗ | ✓ | ✓ ‡ | ✓ | ✓ | ✗ | ✗ | |
[22] | Both | ✗ ⋉ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ ⋊ | ✗ | ✗ | ✗ | |
[12] | Slant | ✗ | ✓ | ✓ ‡ | ✓ ‡ | ✓ | ✗ ⋉ | ✗ | |
STAT | [30] | Slant | ✗ | ✓ | ✓ ⊺ | ✗ | ✗ | ✗ | ✗ |
[31] | Slant | ✗ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✗ | ✓ | |
[32] | Slant | ✗ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✗ | ✗ | |
[33] | Slant | ✗ | ✓ | ✓ ∩ | ✓ ∩ | ✗ | ✗ | ✗ | |
[34] | Slant | ✗ | ✗ ∪ | ✗ | ✗ | ✗ | ✗ | ✓ | |
PHY | [35] | Slant | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✗ | ✗ |
[23] | Both | — ⋗ | ✓ | — ⊓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✗ | ✗ | |
[36] | Both | ✓ ◃ | ✓ | ✗ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | |
[37] | Slant | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✗ | |
FADE | [38] | Slant | ✗ | ✗ | ✓ | ✓ | ✗ | ✗ | ✗ |
[39] | Slant | ✗ | ✗ | ✗ | ✗ | ✗ | ✗ | ✓ | |
[40] | Slant | ✗ | ✗ | ✓ ⊔ | ✓ | ✗ | ✗ | ✗ | |
[41] | Slant | ✗ | ✗ | — ⊕ | ✓ ⊖ | ✗ | ✗ | ✗ | |
LB | [42] | Slant | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ |
Type | Ref. | Frequency Range | Polarization | Regional Climatic Parameter | Spatial Friendly | Reported Region that Suits |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
EMPI | [28] | 10–35 GHz | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | The USA, Europe, and Japan |
[25] | 4–6 GHz | NM ∦ | Rainfall rate | ✗ | Singapore | |
[29] | NM | ✓ | 4 coefficient constants called a,b,c and d depend on geographic area | NM | Best suited areas are in Europe, the USA, Japan, and Australia | |
[24] | 10–100 GHz | ✓Circular, horizontal and vertical | Rainfall rate | ✗ | Temperate region | |
[20] | Above 11 GHz | ✗ | Local rainfall rate | No information available | No practical information; test information is limited within DBSG3 databank | |
[27] | 10–20 GHz | NM | Rainfall rate, the probabilities of occurrence and mean rainfalls, for cell and debris | The model considers a single volume rainfalling area and does not consider convective (cell) and stratified rain (debris) | CCIR rain zone | |
[26] | 10.7–13 GHz (Ku band) | ✓ | Rainfall rate | NM | Fiji | |
[22] | Terrestrial: 7–137 GHz | ✓k and α | Rainfall rate | ✓ | Worldwide (ITU-R databank) | |
[12] | 10–30 GHz | Both | Rainfall rate | ✗ | Tropical | |
STAT | [30] | NM | ✓ | Rainfall rate | ✗ | Temperate region |
[31] | 10–50 GHz | ✓ | Climate characteristics, link elevation angle | Has spatial dynamics of rainfall rate parameter due to Van de Kamp [43] | Xi’an, China | |
[32] | Up to 55 GHz | ✓ | Rainfall rate | ✗ | Worldwide | |
[33] | NM (only 20 GHz is mentioned) | NM | NM | Information NM | France | |
[34] | NM | ✓Horizontal | Measured rain attenuation | NM | Kolkata, India | |
PHY | [35] | Reported frequencies are 15, 30, 39.6 GHz | NM | ✓ | Rainfall rate is not a function of distance | Temperate and tropical |
[23] | 1–100 GHz | ✗ | Cell and debris parameter | No spatial correlation function is included | Temperate region | |
[36] | 11.6 GHz (Range NM) | ✓Circular, Linear | Rainfall rate, wind velocity | ✓(1-year rainfall rate PDF was used) | Italy | |
[37] | 10–50 GHz | ✓ | Rainfall rate; rain height; melting layer height, etc. | ✓Vertical and horizontal | Worldwide | |
FADE | [38] | Ku-band | RHCP, Linear polarization | ✗ | ✗ | Japan (low-elevation Earth–space path) |
[39] | NM | Horizontal | ✓ | ✗ | Tropical area | |
[40] | 10–50 GHz | NM | ✓ ⋈ | ✗ | Designed for global perspective | |
[41] | 10.982 GHz (Ku-band) | Vertical | s-parameter ⊡ | ✗ | Malaysia | |
LB | [42] | NM | NM | Local rainfall data: it needs to train the BPNN networks | NM | Butare, Rwanda |
Type | Ref. | Used/Validation Databank | Remarks about Validation | Complexity Level | Constraints |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
EMPI | [28] | 62 experiments in the USA, Japan and Europe | Shows better prediction with minimum 2 years rainfall datasets | low | The operating frequency range is limited to 10–35 GHz |
[25] | INTELSAT POR experiment (Singapore) | The results have been validated with CCIR model and measured attenuation | low | The recommended frequency is limited to 4–6 GHz | |
[29] | 77 satellite links placed in Europe, the USA, Japan, and Australia (CCIR data bank) | Validated by the author | low | The model is suitable for prediction with an elevation angle ranging from 10∘ to 40∘ | |
[24] | ITU-R databank | ITU-R databank is used to examine the behavior of m parameter at different frequencies as well as different sites | low | Not spatial friendly | |
[20] | DBSG3 databank | The RMS value show that the new model provides the smallest rms and STD in all percentages of time except at 0.001% | high | Application area is limited by low latitudes (between 36∘ South and 36∘ North) and low elevation angles (25∘<) | |
[27] | CCIR rain zone with different elevation angle | Validated by the author | medium ∔ | 10–20 GHz | |
[26] | Used 6 tropical city’s rain databanks from ITU-R | The experimental result agreed about correction factor induced attenuation especially at elevation angle less than 60∘ compared to ITU-R model | medium | In this model it is assumed that rain is uniformly distributed inside a rain cell | |
[22] | ITU-R databank | The model gives decent results with the correctness of its terrestrial and slant direction | medium | The model was not checked with actual data for attenuation | |
[12] | ✗ | Verified with the the beacon signals from WINDS and GE23 satellites (2009 to 2012) | low | Up to 30 GHz frequency is examined | |
STAT | [30] | ✗ | Not validated with heavy rainfall or with rainfall data around the world for different sites | low | The model is applicable only during the rain periods because no transition is included in the model to switch from rainy to clear sky conditions |
[31] | Validated based on the measured rain attenuation data at Xi’an, China | The validation is a good agreement between measured and predicted attenuation using this model, but has not been compared with other important rain attenuation models | high | The size of the area is not defined for a specific set of parameters | |
[33] | ✗ | Not validated | — | The probabilistic weather forecasts could be beneficial to maximize the economic value accounting the transmitted data for higher frequencies (say 50 GHz). | |
[34] | ✗: used measured attenuation data | The validation shows a good agreement between measured and predicted attenuation using this model, but has not been compared with other important rain attenuation models | medium | It needs to derive mean and standard deviation of the Gaussian distribution for a different geographic area and find the coefficients of second-order polynomials from real measured attenuation | |
PHY | [35] | ✓ | Validated at Lae, Papua New Guinea | low | — |
[23] | Satellite: validated through CCIR procedure. Terrestrial: 35 terrestrial paths around the world | Both satellite and terrestrial links have been verified | high † | The probabilities of incidence and mean precipitation for cells and debris are difficult to determine | |
[36] | Experimental dataset | The experimental results show that the method show less error probability. | medium | Needs 1 min rainfall rate | |
[37] | DBSG3 databank | Although the model does not outperform the existing ITU-R model (approximately 2.4% error), it supports a few additional facilities (e.g., site diversity) and takes account of the interference due to hydrometer scattering | high | The correctness is limited by the local values of input parameters like the melting layer and the rain plateau value, which might not be available everywhere | |
FADE | [38] | Experimental dataset | Validated with | low | — |
[39] | ✗ | Validated in Kolkata, India, with experimental set-up | low | To use fade margin data it needs to remove tropospheric scintillation | |
[41] | Only experimental dataset | The resulted output agrees with the measured standard deviation of attenuation | low | The method was tested only at 10.982 GHz | |
[40] | NM | Validated in [44][45] | low | Applicable for limited elevation angle 5–60∘ | |
LB | [42] | Durban, South Africa | The model was not validated with standard DSDB3 or CCIR rain databanks | — | The model was not tested with established well-known rain databanks like DBSG3 or CCIR |
This entry is adapted from the peer-reviewed paper 10.3390/rs13101965