Avionics Engineering Center ILA-36 Orlando, FL October 2007 Computer Modeling of Loran-C Additional...

ILA-36 Orlando, FL October 2007

Avionics Engineering

Center

Computer Modeling of Loran-C Additional Secondary Factors

Janet Blazyk, MSDavid Diggle, PhDAvionics Engineering CenterOhio University, Athens, OH

ILA-36 Orlando, FL October 2007Avionics

Engineering Center

2

BALOR Computer Program

Models Loran-C propagation over ground. Computes field strength, ASF, and ECD. Considers terrain elevation and ground

conductivity. Developed by Paul Williams and David Last,

University of Wales, Bangor, UK. The name “BALOR” comes from BAngor

LORan. The Avionics Engineering Center at Ohio

University took over maintenance of the BALOR software in March 2005.


Engineering Center

3

Factors Affecting Loran-C Propagation Primary Factor (PF) – accounts for the speed of

propagation through the atmosphere, rather than through a vacuum.

Secondary Factor (SF) – accounts for the time difference for a signal traveling over a spherical seawater surface, rather than through the atmosphere.

Additional Secondary Factor (ASF) – accounts for the time difference for a signal path that is at least partly over terrain, rather than all seawater, as well as any other factors that may come into play.

ASFs are affected by Ground conductivity Changes in terrain elevation Receiver elevation Temporal changes (seasons, time-of-day, local weather)


Engineering Center

4

US Ground Conductivity Map

“M3 map” from CFR Radio and Television Rules (47 CFR 73.170)


Engineering Center

5

0

4

8

12

16

20

24

28

32

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500 5000

Distance from Transmitter (km)

Ph

ase

Lag

(m

icro

seco

nd

s)

seawater = Loran secondary factor

Phase of attenuation in relation to conductivity


Engineering Center

6

Additional secondary factor in relation to conductivity

0

4

8

12

16

20

24

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500 5000


AS

F (

mic

rose

con

ds)


Engineering Center

7

Sample BALOR plot of predicted ASFs

BALOR predicts ASFs that are corrections to single-station TOA values.

The transmitter here is Carolina Beach.

Note how ASF values are very low over the ocean, but generally higher and more variable over land.


Engineering Center

8

Effective earth radius

Except at very low frequency, radio waves are refracted by the atmosphere to some extent.

If we assume a linear vertical lapse rate, then this effect may be modeled by multiplying the actual earth radius by some factor, which we will call the effective earth radius factor (eerf).

The traditional value for the eerf is 4/3, but the value should probably be smaller for lower frequencies such as the Loran frequency.

(The inverse, the vertical lapse rate, is also commonly used. In this case, the traditional value is clearly 0.75.)


Engineering Center

9

Effective Earth Radius Factor

From S. Rotheram, IEE Proc., Vol. 128, Pt. F, No. 5, October 1981


Engineering Center

10

Effect of effective earth radius on phase delay

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500 5000


Ph

ase D

ela

y (

mic

roseco

nd

s)

flat and sandy soil or rocky and steep hills

average soil

seawater


Engineering Center

11

Height Gain Factor This factor comes into play in two ways:

First, it is part of the solution for irregular terrain – if a point is on a hill, it is as if it were a raised transmitter or receiver.

Second, if we are actually modeling an elevated receiver, say in an aircraft, then we need to apply the height gain factor again to the ground-based solution.

The height gain factor is a complex function of height, distance, and ground conductivity.


Engineering Center

12

Relative magnitude of attenuation vs. receiver heightae=1.14a, sigma=5S/m, epsilon=80

0.95

1.00

1.05

1.10

1.15

1.20

1.25

1.30

1.35

1.40

1.45

0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 14000 16000 18000 20000

Receiver Elevation (m)

Mag

nit

ud

e R

ela

tive t

o E

levati

on

= 0


Engineering Center

13

Phase offset vs. receiver heightae=1.14a, sigma=5S/m, epsilon=80

-1

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 14000 16000 18000 20000


Ph

ase O

ffset

(rad

ian

s)

Rela

tive t

o E

levati

on

= 0


Engineering Center

14

Relative magnitude of attenuation vs. receiver heightae=1.14a, sigma=0.001S/m, epsilon=15

0.70

0.80

0.90

1.00

1.10

1.20

1.30

1.40

1.50

1.60

1.70

0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 14000 16000 18000 20000


Mag

nit

ud

e R

ela

tive t

o E

levati

on

= 0


Engineering Center

15

Phase offset vs. receiver heightae=1.14a, sigma=0.001S/m, epsilon=15

-1

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 14000 16000 18000 20000


Ph

ase O

ffset

(rad

ian

s)

Rela

tive t

o E

levati

on

= 0



Center

“Worst Case Path” Examples


Engineering Center

17

“Worst Case Path”

In their 1979 report, Burt Gambill and Kenneth Schwartz described a path along the radial from the Loran transmitter at Searchlight to Fort Cronkhite, near San Francisco Bay.

Because of the extremes in terrain along the path, they called it the “Worst Case Path”, or WCP.

It makes a nice example, so we will make use of this path as well.

Searchlight

Fort Cronkhite

124 W 122

W 120

W 118

W 116

W 114

W

34 N

36 N

38 N

40 N


Engineering Center

18

Terrain Elevation over “Worst Case Path”

-500

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

4000

4500

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800


Te

rra

in E

lev

ati

on

(m

)

Death Valley

Mount Langley

Searchlight

Fort Cronkhite


Engineering Center

19

Ground Conductivity over “Worst Case Path”

0.001

0.01

0.1

1

10

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800


Gro

un

d C

on

du

cti

vit

y (

S/m

)


Engineering Center

20

Terrain Smoothing over “Worst Case Path”

-1000

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800


Terr

ain

Ele

va

tio

n (

m)

+3000

+2000

+1000


Engineering Center

21

Effect of Terrain Smoothing over WCP

-0.5

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800


AS

F (

mic

roc

sec

on

ds

)


Engineering Center

22

Effect of Receiver Altitude on ASFs over WCP

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800


AS

F (

mic

ros

eco

nd

s)


Engineering Center

23

Effect of Receiver Altitude on ASFs over WCP

-0.3

-0.2

-0.1

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800


AS

F R

ela

tiv

e t

o G

rou

nd

ed

Re

ce

ive

r (m

icro

sec

on

ds

)


Engineering Center

24

Terrain Contributions to ASFs over WCP

-1.5

-1

-0.5

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800


AS

F (

mic

ros

ec

on

ds

)



Center

Reality Checks


Engineering Center

26

Loran-C Correction Tables

Published by NOAA Show ASF corrections to TD values for

master-secondary pairs Cover US coastal confluence zones Data represents the results of a computer

program, adjusted to fit measured data


Engineering Center

27

Sample Loran-C correction table data


Engineering Center

28

Terrain in the US West Coast region

Ground conductivity Terrain elevation


Engineering Center

29

Calculated ASFs for Fallon and Searchlight

Fallon Searchlight


Engineering Center

30

Correction table data vs. BALOR results

Loran-C correction table data Relative ASF data from BALOR


Engineering Center

31

Flight path from Ohio toward Carolina Beachtransmitter is Carolina Beach; aircraft is King Air; 8/29/07

The plot at left shows flight path; the color represents ASFs. Terrain elevation and conductivity are shown above.

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

100200300400500600700800


Ter

rain

Ele

vati

on

(m

)

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

Gro

un

d C

on

du

ctiv

ity

(mS

/m)


Engineering Center

32

Comparison of measured and calculated ASFs for flight from Ohio toward Carolina Beach

-1.0

0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

100200300400500600700800

Distance From Transmitter (km)

AS

F (

mic

roseco

nd

s)


Engineering Center

33

Approach to Allaire Airport, Belmar/Farmingdale, NJtransmitter is Carolina Beach, aircraft is King Air; 4/10/07

Flight Path Calculated Map of ASFs


Engineering Center

34

Comparison of measured and calculated ASFs from Carolina Beach during approach to Allaire, NJ

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180

Sample Number

AS

F (

mic

roseco

nd

s)



Center

Closing


Engineering Center

36

Conclusions Further comparisons between BALOR and

actual measured data are required. It may not be possible to obtain extremely

accurate ASF predictions, due to lack of detail and possible bias in the conductivity database.

Nevertheless, we should be able to eliminate any bias or scale errors from the BALOR model itself.

Even in its current state, BALOR is a useful tool for large scale mapping of predicted ASFs.

More accurate results could be produced by adjusting the BALOR maps to fit measured data points.


Engineering Center

37

Acknowledgements

Mitchell Narins, FAA, sponsor David Diggle, OU Avionics Engineering

Center, supervisor Wouter Pelgrum, Exian Navigation

Solutions, developer of the Loran TOA Measurement System (TMS)

Paul Williams and David Last, originators of the BALOR model



Center

Questions?

Avionics Engineering Center ILA-36 Orlando, FL October 2007 Computer Modeling of Loran-C Additional...

Documents

Transcript of Avionics Engineering Center ILA-36 Orlando, FL October 2007 Computer Modeling of Loran-C Additional...