The shadowing propagation model

International Journal of Wireless & Mobile Networks (IJWMN) Vol. 7, No. 4, August 2015
DOI : 10.5121/ijwmn.2015.7408 103
THE SHADOWING PROPAGATION MODEL
IN UNMANNED AERIAL VEHICLE
NETWORKS
Jun Peng
Electrical Engineering Department
University of Texas – Rio Grande Valley
Edinburg, Texas, USA
ABSTRACT
Unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) have become very popular recently for both civil uses and potential
commercial uses, such as law enforcement, crop survey, grocery delivery, and photographing, although
they were mainly used for military purposes before. Researchers need the help of simulations when they
design and test new protocols for UAV networks because simulations can be done for a network of a size
that a test bed can hardly approach. In the simulation of an UAV network it is important to choose a radio
propagation model for the links in the network. We study the shadowing radio propagation model in this
paper and compare it with the free space model, both of which are available in the ns2 network simulation
package. We also show how the choice of the parameters of the shadowing model would impact on the
network performance of a UAV network.
KEYWORDS
The shadowing model, propagation models, unmanned aerial vehicles (UAV), network Simulation
1. INTRODUCTION
Unmanned aerial vehicles had been mainly used in military applications before, but they became
popular in recent years in both civilian and commercial applications, as hardware and software
became more advanced and cheaper. For example, people started to use UAVs to film subjects
from perspectives that they could hardly imagine or reach before due to the high cost of having an
access to a plane or helicopter. Other advantages of using UAVs in such an application include
safety, efficiency, and environmental friendliness. UAVs have also been used for law
enforcement, crowd management, surveillance, search and rescue, and scientific research [1].
It will become inevitable that UAVs will need to communicate with each other for purposes of
coordination and collaborations in the future, as they become more and more popular in civilian
and commercial applications. One example is that UAVs will likely need some type of
coordination in the future to avoid collisions among themselves. Another example is that
applications requiring a large amount of UAVs working together dynamically, such as doing a
constant surveillance on a large geographical area, will also need the UAVs to communicate with
each other effectively.

104
Researchers have been investigating topics at all layers of UAV networks to enable UAVs for
networking. Asadpour et al. [2] studied the performance of IEEE 802.11n interfaces in UAV
networks and they found that 802.11n performed poorly in highly mobile scenarios. Cai et cal. [3]
proposed a medium access control (MAC) protocol for UAV ad-hoc networks with full-duplex
radios. They proposed a token based technique to update information in the network for
efficiently handling the high mobility of UAVs. Ollero et al. [4] presented a platform that enables
autonomous aerial vehicles to cooperate with ground wireless sensor-actuator networks. Alshbatat
et al. [5] used the approach of cross layer design to deal with the high dynamics in UAV
networks. Alshbatat et al. [6] also proposed an adaptive medium access control protocol for UAV
networks using directional antennas. Gu et al. [7] proposed a routing scheme for multi-layer ad
hoc networks that use UAVs in their backbones. Gu et al. [8] also presented a multiple access
protocol for such type of network.
When UAV networks of large scales are needed in testing communication and networking
protocols, simulations are usually the only practical way that would be available to most
researchers. One important choice in simulating an UAV network is the radio propagation model
used in the network. There are several radio propagation models that are available in the ns-2
network simulation package [9]. Although there are studies on some of these radio propagation
models for vehicular networks [2], they in general focus on terrestrial networks. In this paper we
investigate the shadowing model in UAV networks and show how the choice of its parameters
may have an impact on the performance of the simulated network. We also compare the
shadowing model with the free space propagation model in the paper.
The rest of the paper is organized as follows. We introduce the the shadowing radio propagation
model and the free space loss model in Section 2. We present in Section 3 numerical results on
these two models using simulations. We finally make our conclusions in Section 4.
2. THE SHADOWING RADIO PROPAGATION MODEL
Before we introduce the shadowing model in this section we first introduce the free space
propagation model because it may be used to calculate the reference power in the shadowing
model. Besides, we will compare the free space loss model with the shadowing model in our
simulations.
The free space radio propagation model assumes, as its name indicates, that the transmitter and
the receiver are in free space without obstacles. The propagation formula is as follows [10]:
22
λd
AA
PP tr
tr = (1)
where rP is the signal power at the receiving antenna, tP is the signal power at the transmitting
antenna, rA is the effective area of the receiving antenna, tA is the effective area of the
transmitting antenna, d is the distance between the transmitting antenna and the receiving
antenna, and λ is the wavelength of the signal.
The effective area of an isotropic antenna is πλ 4/ . Equation 1 thus becomes the following for
isotropic antennas:
2
2
)4( d
PP tr
π
λ
= (2)

105
Equation 1 becomes the following when the transmitting antenna and the receiving antenna have
an antenna gain that is not equal to 1:
2
2
)4( d
GGPP rttr
π
λ
= (3)
where tG is the antenna gain of the transmitting antenna and rG is the antenna gain of the
receiving antenna.
As noted in [10], Equations 1 to 3 only apply under the following condition:
λ
2
2a
d ≥ (4)
Where a is the largest linear dimension of either of the antennas.
Because of multipath propagation effects, in reality the received power at a receiving antenna is
not a deterministic function of the communication distance as shown in the free space loss model.
Instead, the received power fluctuates randomly versus time. The shadowing model [11] better
reflects this characteristic of the received signal power in reality than the free space loss model
introduced earlier. The path loss is usually expressed in dB as follows in the the shadowing
model:
[ ] [ ] dBdBrdBr X
d
d
dPdP +





−=
0
0 log10)()( β (5)
where 0d is a reference distance, β is the path loss exponent, dBX is a Gaussian random
variable having a zero mean and a standard deviation of dBδ . The typical values of β and δ are
shown in Tables 1 and 2, respectively.
Table 1 Typical value of β in different environment
Environment β
Outdoor, free space 2
Outdoor, shadowed urban area 2.7-5
In building, line-of-sight 1.6-1.8
In building, obstructed 4-6
Table 1 Typical value of δ in different environment
Environment δ
Outdoor 4-12
Office, hard partition 7
Office, soft partition 9.6
Factory, line-of-sight 3-6
Factory, obstructed 6.8

106
3. SIMULATION RESULTS
In this section we study the shadowing model in UAV networks using the ns2 simulation
package. We also compare this model with the free space propagation model in this section. The
simulation package ns2 does not support simulations of three dimensional networks readily. We
modified the code for simulating UAV networks.
The test bed used in our simulations is shown in Figure 1, which has the same size of 500 meters
for its width, length, and height. UAVs fly freely in this defined space following the random
waypoint model. The UAVs in the test bed use the IEEE 802.11 air interface and default settings
are used in the simulations. For traffic, each UAV sets up a CBR connection with another UAV at
a random time in the duration of each simulation. A CBR source has a packet rate of 10 packets
per second and the size of each packet is 512 bytes. The UAVs use the DSR routing protocol [12]
in the test bed.
Figure 1 The simulated test bed
In our simulations we tested the shadowing model with varying node densities in the test bed and
compared it with the free space propagation model. In particular, for each model we varied the
number of nodes in the test bed from 10 to 50 in our simulations of UAV networks. In each
simulation we gathered data to calculate the average throughput and the average packet loss rate
of the CBR flows in the network. We also gathered data on the packet delay distributions in the
network. The simulation results comparing the two models are shown in Figures 2 to 9.
As shown in Figure 2, the average flow throughput in the network decreases as the node density
increases in the network. This decrease of flow throughput is mainly caused by two factors. One
is that the total traffic rate is higher in the network when there are more nodes in the network
because each node starts a CBR flow at a random time in each simulation. The other factor is that
the contention at the medium access control (MAC) layer is also higher when there are more
nodes in the network. The throughput results are also corroborated by the packet loss rate shown
in Figure 3. As shown in Figure 3, a higher node density in the network results in a higher packet
loss rate in the network.

107
As also shown in Figures 2 and 3, both the flow throughput trend and the packet loss rate trend
are consistent for the two propagation models. However, the throughput for the shadowing model
is significantly lower as compared with that of the free space model. The difference can reach
about thirty percent when the node density is low. When the node density is high, however, the
difference is smaller because the network becomes very congested in such a case and lots of
packet are dropped for both models. Similar observations can be made in Figure 3 for packet
losses for the two models.
Figure 2. The average flow rate for the two propagation models
Figure 3. The average packet loss rate for the two propagation models
The packet delay data shown in Figures 4 and 5 for the case of ten nodes in the test bed also
corroborate the results shown in earlier figures for the two models. As shown by Figures 4 and 5,
most packets have a delay within 0.2 second for the free space propagation model. For the
shadowing model, however, much more packets have a delay beyond 0.2 second. These packet
delay results are consistent with the throughput and loss results shown earlier.

108
Figure 4. The histogram of the packet delays for the free space loss model
Figure 5. The histogram of the packet delays for the shadowing loss model
After showing the results comparing the shadowing model with the free space model, we now
present more results on the shadowing model. Figures 6 and 7 show the average flow rate and the
average packet loss rate, respectively, in the test bed of ten nodes for the model. The horizontal
axis in these two figures is the δ parameter of the shadowing model, which reflects the severity
of the multipath effects on the links. As shown in Figure 6, the average flow throughput decreases
as δ increases. In particular, when δ increases from 2 to 12 the throughput decreases from above
18000 bps to below 8000 bps. The packet loss results in Figure 7 show results that are consistent
with the throughput results. A higher δ , which means higher multipath effects, results in a lower
average flow throughput and a higher average packet loss rate.

109
Figure 6. The average flow rate for the shadowing model with varyingδ
Figure 7. The average packet loss rate for the shadowing model with varyingδ
Figures 8 and 9 present the average flow rate and the average packet loss rate, respectively,
versus the β parameter of the shadowing model, which reflects the severity of the path loss. As
shown in Figure 8, the average flow throughput decreases rapidly as β increases even slowly. In
particular, when β increases from 2 to 2.6 the throughput decreases from above 18000 bps to
almost zero bps. The packet loss results presented in Figure 9 shows results that are also
consistent with the throughput results. A higher β , which means a higher path loss, results in a
lower average flow throughput and a higher average packet loss rate. When β reaches 2.6 in the
test bed, the packet loss rate reaches almost one hundred percent.

110
Figure 8. The average flow rate for the shadowing model with varying β
Figure 9. The average packet loss rate for the shadowing model with varying β
In summary, the choice of a radio propagation model in the simulation of an UAV network does
have a significant impact on the performance of the network. Moreover, the choice of the
parameters of a model are also important in simulating a UAV network, as shown by our study of
the shadowing model with varying parameters. We also found, however, that even the shadowing
model had simulation results very different from what the free space model had in each specific
case of simulation, the trend of the simulation results observed as a whole did show consistency
for the two models that we studied.

111
4.CONCLUSIONS
We investigated the shadowing radio propagation model in UAV networks using the ns2 network
simulation package. Our investigation shows that the shadowing model may generate simulation
results that are significantly different from those of the free space loss model in each specific case
of simulation. Particularly, the flow throughput, the packet loss rate, and the packet delays
consistently show much lower performance for the shadowing model than for the free space
model. However, our results also show that when the simulation results are observed as a whole,
the trend of flow throughput, packet loss rate, and packet delays is consistent for the two models.
We also found that the choice of the parameters of the shadowing propagation model is
significant in terms of network performance. Our conclusion is that the choice of a radio
propagation model and its parameters in simulating an UAV network does have significant
impact on the simulation results for each individual case of simulation, although the choice does
not affect the interpretation of the data when performance trend is the only concern of
investigation.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors would like to thank everyone who offered support to this project and the publication
of its results.
REFERENCES
[1] T. H. Cox, C. J. Nagy, M. A. Skoog, and I. A. Somers, “Civil UAV Capability Assessment,” NASA,
2004.
[2] M. Asadpour, D. Giustiniano, K. A. Hummel, and S. Heimlicher, “Characterizing 802.11N Aerial
Communication,” in Proceedings of the Second ACM MobiHoc Workshop on Airborne Networks
and Communications, 2013, pp. 7–12.
[3] Y. Cai, F. Yu, J. Li, Y. Zhou, and L. Lamont, “Medium Access Control for Unmanned Aerial Vehicle
(UAV) Ad-Hoc Networks With Full-Duplex Radios and Multipacket Reception Capability,”
Vehicular Technology, IEEE Transactions on, vol. 62, pp. 390–394, Jan 2013.
[4] A. Ollero, M. Bernard, M. La Civita, L. van Hoesel, P. Marron, J. Lepley, and E. de Andres,
“AWARE: Platform for Autonomous self-deploying and operation of Wireless sensor-actuator
networks cooperating with unmanned AeRial vehiclEs,” in Safety, Security and Rescue Robotics,
2007, IEEE International Workshop on, Sept 2007, pp. 1–6.
[5] A. Alshbatat and L. Dong, “Adaptive MAC protocol for UAV communication networks using
directional antennas,” in Networking, Sensing and Control (ICNSC), 2010 International Conference
on, April 2010, pp. 598–603.
[6] A. Alshbatat and L. Dong, “Cross layer design for mobile Ad-Hoc Unmanned Aerial Vehicle
communication networks,” in Networking, Sensing and Control (ICNSC), 2010 International
Conference on, April 2010, pp. 331–336.
[7] D. Gu, G. Pei, H. Ly, M. Gerla, and X. Hong, “Hierarchical routing for multi-layer ad-hoc wireless
networks with UAVs,” in MILCOM 2000, vol. 1, 2000, pp. 310–314.
[8] D. Gu, H. Ly, X. Hong, M. Gerla, G. Pei, and Y.-Z. Lee, “C-ICAMA, a centralized intelligent channel
assigned multiple access for multi-layer ad-hoc wireless networks with UAVs,” in Wireless
Communications and Networking Conference, 2000, IEEE, vol. 2, 2000, pp. 879–884.
[9] The network simulator - ns-2. [Online]. Available: http://www.isi.edu/nsnam/ns/
[10] H. T. Friis, “A note on a simple transmission formula,” in Proceedings of the I.R.E. and Waves and
Electrons, 1946, pp. 254–256.
[11] T. S. Rappaport, “Wireless Communications, Principles and Practice,” Prentice Hall, 1996.
[12] D. B. Johnson, D. A. Maltz, and Y.-C. Hu, “The Dynamic Source Routing Protocol for Mobile Ad
Hoc Networks (DSR),” IETF Interet draft,draft-ietf-manet-dsr-10.txt, July 2004.

112
Authors
Jun Peng received his Ph.D. degree from the Department of Electrical, Computer & Systems Engineering at
Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy, New York, United States. He is currently an associate professor at
the Electrical Engineering Department of University of Texas – Rio Grande Valley, Edinburg, Texas,
United States. His research interests are in computer and communication networks.

The shadowing propagation model

More Related Content

What's hot (20)

Viewers also liked (17)

Similar to The shadowing propagation model (20)

Recently uploaded (20)

The shadowing propagation model