Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Comparative analysis assesses wave propagation models for accuracy in various terrains, suggesting optimal use conditions.
This paper presents a comparative analysis of three outdoor wave propagation models—ITU-R P.1546-6, the SUI model, and ITU-R P.452-17—benchmarked against the deterministic Parabolic Equation Modeling (PEM) method at 3.6 GHz and 6 GHz. The evaluation focuses on prediction accuracy (RMSE, MAE, bias, relative error), terrain sensitivity, and computational efficiency. At 3.6 GHz, ITU-R P.1546-6 shows poor terrain responsiveness and high relative errors, while ITU-R P.452-17 demonstrates strong terrain sensitivity and low errors in flat areas, but decreased accuracy over hilly terrain. At 6 GHz, the SUI model consistently underestimates field strength and exhibits weak terrain sensitivity, limiting its use to rough estimations. In contrast, ITU-R P.452-17 maintains good terrain correlation and acceptable accuracy, although it slightly overestimates field strength in complex environments. The results confirm that prediction accuracy, terrain sensitivity, and bias are highly model- and frequency-dependent. ITU-R P.452-17 emerges as the most reliable and computationally efficient alternative to deterministic methods when terrain effects must be considered without significant computational overhead.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Unger et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: