IEC 62232:2017 provides methods for the determination of radio-frequency (RF) field strength and specific absorption rate (SAR) in the vicinity of radiocommunication base stations (RBS) for the purpose of evaluating human exposure. This document: – considers intentionally radiating RBS which transmit on one or more antennas using one or more frequencies in the range 110 MHz to 100 GHz; – considers the impact of ambient sources on RF exposure at least in the 100 kHz to 300 GHz frequency range; – specifies the methods to be used for RF exposure evaluation for compliance assessment applications, namely: – product compliance – determination of compliance boundary information for an RBS product before it is placed on the market; – product installation compliance – determination of the total RF exposure levels in accessible areas from an RBS product and other relevant sources before the product is put into service; – in-situ RF exposure assessment \u2013 measurement of in-situ RF exposure levels in the vicinity of an RBS installation after the product has been taken into operation; – describes several RF field strength and SAR measurement and computation methodologies with guidance on their applicability to address both the in-situ evaluation of installed RBS and laboratory-based evaluations; – describes how surveyors, with a sufficient level of expertise, establish their specific evaluation procedures appropriate for their evaluation purpose; – provides guidance on how to report, interpret and compare results from different evaluation methodologies and, where the evaluation purpose requires it, determine a justified decision against a limit value and – provides short descriptions of the informative example case studies given in the companion Technical Report IEC TR 62669] This second edition cancels and replaces the first edition published in 2011 and constitutes a technical revision.<\/p>\n
| PDF Pages<\/th>\n | PDF Title<\/th>\n<\/tr>\n | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2<\/td>\n | undefined <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | ||||||
| 7<\/td>\n | CONTENTS <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | ||||||
| 17<\/td>\n | FOREWORD <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | ||||||
| 19<\/td>\n | INTRODUCTION <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | ||||||
| 20<\/td>\n | 1 Scope 2 Normative references <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | ||||||
| 21<\/td>\n | 3 Terms and definitions <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | ||||||
| 27<\/td>\n | 4 Symbols and abbreviated terms 4.1 Physical quantities <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | ||||||
| 28<\/td>\n | 4.2 Constants 4.3 Abbreviated terms <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | ||||||
| 29<\/td>\n | 5 Quick start guide and how to use this document 5.1 Overview 5.2 Quick start guide <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | ||||||
| 30<\/td>\n | Figures Figure 1 \u2013 Quick start guide to the evaluation process <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | ||||||
| 31<\/td>\n | 5.3 How to use this document Tables Table 1 \u2013 Quick start guide evaluation steps <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | ||||||
| 32<\/td>\n | 5.4 Worked case studies 6 Evaluation processes for product compliance, product installation compliance and in-situ RF exposure assessments 6.1 Evaluation process for product compliance 6.1.1 General 6.1.2 Establishing compliance boundaries <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | ||||||
| 33<\/td>\n | 6.1.3 Iso-surface compliance boundary definition 6.1.4 Simple compliance boundaries Figure 2 \u2013 Example of complex compliance boundary Figure 3 \u2013 Example of circular cylindrical compliance boundaries <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | ||||||
| 34<\/td>\n | Figure 4 \u2013 Example of box shaped compliance boundary Figure 5 \u2013 Example of truncated box shaped compliance boundary <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | ||||||
| 35<\/td>\n | 6.1.5 Methods for establishing the compliance boundary Figure 6 \u2013 Example of dish antenna compliance boundary (from [11]) <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | ||||||
| 36<\/td>\n | Figure 7 \u2013 Example illustrating the linear scaling procedure <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | ||||||
| 37<\/td>\n | 6.1.6 Uncertainty 6.1.7 Reporting <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | ||||||
| 38<\/td>\n | 6.2 Evaluation process used for product installation compliance 6.2.1 General 6.2.2 General evaluation procedure for product installations <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | ||||||
| 39<\/td>\n | 6.2.3 Product installation data collection Figure 8 \u2212 Flowchart describing the product installation evaluation process <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | ||||||
| 40<\/td>\n | 6.2.4 Simplified product installation evaluation process <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | ||||||
| 41<\/td>\n | Table 2 \u2013 Example of product installation classes where a simplified evaluationprocess is applicable (based on ICNIRP general public limits [13]) <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | ||||||
| 42<\/td>\n | 6.2.5 Assessment area selection <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | ||||||
| 44<\/td>\n | 6.2.6 Measurements Figure 9 \u2013 Square-shaped assessment domain boundary (ADB) with size Dad <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | ||||||
| 45<\/td>\n | 6.2.7 Computations <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | ||||||
| 46<\/td>\n | 6.2.8 Uncertainty 6.2.9 Reporting <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | ||||||
| 47<\/td>\n | 6.3 Evaluation processes for in-situ RF exposure assessment 6.3.1 General requirements, source determination and site analysis <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | ||||||
| 48<\/td>\n | Figure 10 \u2013 Alternative routes to evaluate in-situ RF exposure <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | ||||||
| 49<\/td>\n | 6.3.2 Measurement procedures <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | ||||||
| 50<\/td>\n | 6.3.3 Uncertainty 6.3.4 Reporting <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | ||||||
| 51<\/td>\n | 6.4 Averaging procedures 6.4.1 Spatial averaging 6.4.2 Time averaging 7 Determining the evaluation method 7.1 Overview 7.2 Process to determine the evaluation method 7.2.1 General <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | ||||||
| 52<\/td>\n | 7.2.2 Establishing the evaluation points in relation to the source-environment plane <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | ||||||
| 53<\/td>\n | Figure 11 \u2013 Source-environment plane concept <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | ||||||
| 54<\/td>\n | 7.2.3 Exposure metric selection 8 Evaluation methods 8.1 Overview Table 3 \u2013 Exposure metrics validity for evaluation points in each source region <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | ||||||
| 55<\/td>\n | 8.2 Measurement methods 8.2.1 General 8.2.2 RF field strength measurements Figure 12 \u2013 Flow chart of the measurement methods <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | ||||||
| 56<\/td>\n | 8.2.3 SAR measurements Table 4 \u2013 Requirements for RF field strength measurements Table 5 \u2013 Whole-body SAR exclusions based on RF power levels Table 6 \u2013 Requirements for SAR measurements. <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | ||||||
| 57<\/td>\n | 8.3 Computation methods Figure 13 \u2013 Flow chart of the relevant computation methods <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | ||||||
| 58<\/td>\n | 9 Uncertainty Table 7 \u2013 Applicability of computation methodsfor source-environment regions of Figure 10 Table 8 \u2013 Requirements for computation methods <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | ||||||
| 59<\/td>\n | 10 Reporting 10.1 General requirements 10.2 Report format <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | ||||||
| 60<\/td>\n | 10.3 Opinions and interpretations <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | ||||||
| 61<\/td>\n | Annex A (informative)Source environment plane and guidance on the evaluation method selection A.1 Guidance on the source-environment plane A.1.1 General A.1.2 Source-environment plane example Figure A.1 \u2013 Example source-environment plane regions near a radio base station antenna on a tower which has a narrow vertical (elevation plane) beamwidth (not to scale) <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | ||||||
| 62<\/td>\n | A.1.3 Source regions Figure A.2 \u2013 Example source-environment plane regions near a roof-top antennawhich has a narrow vertical (elevation plane) beamwidth (not to scale) <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | ||||||
| 63<\/td>\n | Figure A.3 \u2013 Geometry of an antenna with largest linear dimension Leffand largest end dimension Lend <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | ||||||
| 64<\/td>\n | Table A.1 \u2013 Definition of source regions Table A.2 \u2013 Default source region boundaries <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | ||||||
| 65<\/td>\n | Table A.3 \u2013 Source region boundaries for antennas with maximum dimension less than 2,5 \u03bb Table A.4 \u2013 Source region boundaries for linear\/planar antenna arrayswith a maximum dimension greater than or equal to 2,5 \u03bb <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | ||||||
| 66<\/td>\n | Table A.5 \u2013 Source region boundaries for equiphase radiation aperture (e.g. dish) antennas with maximum reflector dimension much greater than a wavelength Table A.6 \u2013 Source region boundaries for leaky feeders <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | ||||||
| 67<\/td>\n | Figure A.4 \u2013 Maximum path difference for an antenna with largest linear dimension L <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | ||||||
| 68<\/td>\n | A.2 Select between computation or measurement approaches Table A.7 \u2013 Far-field distance r measured in metres as a function of angle \u03b2 <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | ||||||
| 69<\/td>\n | A.3 Select measurement method A.3.1 Selection stages A.3.2 Selecting between field strength and SAR measurement approaches Table A.8 \u2013 Guidance on selecting between computation and measurement approaches <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | ||||||
| 70<\/td>\n | A.3.3 Selecting between broadband and frequency-selective measurement Table A.9 \u2013 Guidance on selecting between broadband and frequency-selective measurement <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | ||||||
| 71<\/td>\n | A.3.4 Selecting RF field strength measurement procedures A.4 Select computation method Table A.10 \u2013 Guidance on selecting RF field strength measurement procedures <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | ||||||
| 72<\/td>\n | Table A.11 \u2013 Guidance on selecting computation methods <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | ||||||
| 73<\/td>\n | A.5 Additional considerations A.5.1 Simplicity A.5.2 Evaluation method ranking A.5.3 Applying multiple methods for RF exposure evaluation Table A.12 \u2013 Guidance on specific evaluation method ranking <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | ||||||
| 74<\/td>\n | Annex B (normative)Evaluation methods B.1 Overview B.2 Evaluation parameters B.2.1 Overview B.2.2 Coordinate systems <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | ||||||
| 75<\/td>\n | B.2.3 Reference points B.2.4 Variables Figure B.1 \u2013 Cylindrical, cartesian and spherical coordinatesrelative to the RBS antenna Table B.1 \u2013 Dimension variables <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | ||||||
| 76<\/td>\n | Table B.2 \u2013 RF power variables <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | ||||||
| 77<\/td>\n | Table B.3 \u2013 Antenna variables <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | ||||||
| 78<\/td>\n | B.3 Measurement methods B.3.1 RF field strength measurements Table B.4 \u2013 Exposure metric variables <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | ||||||
| 80<\/td>\n | Table B.5 \u2013 Broadband measurement system requirements <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | ||||||
| 81<\/td>\n | Table B.6 \u2013 Frequency-selective measurement system requirements <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | ||||||
| 86<\/td>\n | Figure B.2 \u2013 Evaluation locations <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | ||||||
| 87<\/td>\n | Figure B.3 \u2013 Relationship of separation of remote radio sourceand evaluation area to separation of evaluation points <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | ||||||
| 89<\/td>\n | Figure B.4 \u2013 Outline of the surface scanning methodology <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | ||||||
| 90<\/td>\n | Figure B.5 \u2013 Block diagram of the near-field antenna measurement system <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | ||||||
| 91<\/td>\n | Figure B.6 \u2013 Minimum radius constraint where a denotes the minimum radius of a sphere, centred at the reference point, that will encompass the EUT Figure B.7 \u2013 Maximum angular sampling spacing constraint <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | ||||||
| 95<\/td>\n | Figure B.8 \u2013 Outline of the volume\/surface scanning methodology <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | ||||||
| 96<\/td>\n | Figure B.9 \u2013 Block diagram of typical near-field EUT measurement system <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | ||||||
| 102<\/td>\n | Figure B.10 \u2013 Spatial averaging schemes relative to foot support level and in the vertical plane oriented to offer maximum area in the direction of the source being evaluated Figure B.11 \u2013 Spatial averaging relative to spatial-peak field strength point height <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | ||||||
| 105<\/td>\n | Table B.7 \u2013 Sample template for estimating the expanded uncertainty of an in-situ RF field strength measurement that used a frequency-selective instrument <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | ||||||
| 106<\/td>\n | Table B.8 \u2013 Sample template for estimating the expanded uncertainty of an in-situ RF field strength measurement that used a broadband instrument <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | ||||||
| 107<\/td>\n | Table B.9 \u2013 Sample template for estimating the expanded uncertainty of a laboratory-based RF field strength measurement using the surface scanning method <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | ||||||
| 108<\/td>\n | Table B.10 \u2013 Sample template for estimating the expanded uncertainty of a laboratory-based RF field strength measurement using the volume scanning method <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | ||||||
| 109<\/td>\n | B.3.2 SAR measurements <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | ||||||
| 110<\/td>\n | Figure B.12 \u2013 Positioning of the EUT relative to the relevant phantom <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | ||||||
| 113<\/td>\n | Table B.11 \u2013 Numerical reference SAR values for reference dipoles and flat phantom \u2013 All values are normalized to a forward power of 1 W <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | ||||||
| 116<\/td>\n | Figure B.13 \u2013 Phantom liquid volume and measurement volume used for whole-body SAR measurements with the box-shaped phantoms Table B.12 \u2013 Phantom liquid volume and measurement volume used for whole-body SAR measurements [35], [29] Table B.13 \u2013 Correction factor to compensate for a possible bias in the obtained general public whole-body SAR when assessed using the large box-shaped phantom for child exposure configurations [36] <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | ||||||
| 117<\/td>\n | Table B.14 \u2013 Measurement uncertainty evaluation template for EUT whole-body SAR test <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | ||||||
| 118<\/td>\n | Table B.15 \u2013 Measurement uncertainty evaluation template for whole-body SAR system validation <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | ||||||
| 119<\/td>\n | B.4 Computation methods B.4.1 Overview and general requirements <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | ||||||
| 120<\/td>\n | B.4.2 Formulas <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | ||||||
| 121<\/td>\n | Figure B.14 \u2013 Reflection due to the presence of a ground plane Figure B.15 \u2013 Enclosed cylinder around collinear arrays,with and without electrical downtilt <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | ||||||
| 123<\/td>\n | Figure B.16 \u2013 Leaky feeder geometry <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | ||||||
| 124<\/td>\n | Figure B.17 \u2013 Directions for which SAR estimation expressions are given <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | ||||||
| 125<\/td>\n | Table B.16 \u2013 Applicability of SAR estimation formulas <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | ||||||
| 126<\/td>\n | Table B.17 \u2013 Definition of C(f) <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | ||||||
| 128<\/td>\n | B.4.3 Basic algorithms Table B.18 \u2013 Input parameters for SAR estimation formulas validation Table B.19 \u2013 SAR10g and SARwb estimation formula reference results for Table B.18 parameters and a body mass of 46 kg <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | ||||||
| 129<\/td>\n | Figure B.18 \u2013 Reference frame employed for cylindrical formulas for field strength computation at a point P (left), and on a line perpendicular to boresight (right) <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | ||||||
| 130<\/td>\n | Figure B.19 \u2013 Views illustrating the three valid zones for field strength computation around an antenna <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | ||||||
| 131<\/td>\n | Table B.20 \u2013 Definition of boundaries for selecting the zone of computation <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | ||||||
| 133<\/td>\n | Figure B.20 \u2013 Cylindrical formulas reference results Table B.21 \u2013 Input parameters for cylinder and spherical formulas validation <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | ||||||
| 134<\/td>\n | B.4.4 Advanced computation methods Figure B.21 \u2013 Spherical formulas reference results <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | ||||||
| 136<\/td>\n | Figure B.22 \u2013 Synthetic model and ray tracing algorithms geometry and parameters <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | ||||||
| 138<\/td>\n | Table B.22 \u2013 Sample template for estimating the expanded uncertaintyof a synthetic model and ray tracing RF field strength computation <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | ||||||
| 139<\/td>\n | Figure B.23 \u2013 Line 4 far-field positions for synthetic model and ray tracing validation example <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | ||||||
| 140<\/td>\n | Figure B.24 \u2013 Antenna parameters for synthetic model and ray tracing algorithms validation example <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | ||||||
| 141<\/td>\n | Table B.23 \u2013 Synthetic model and ray tracing power density reference results <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | ||||||
| 145<\/td>\n | Table B.24 \u2013 Sample template for estimating the expanded uncertaintyof a full wave RF field strength computation <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | ||||||
| 147<\/td>\n | Figure B.25 \u2013 Generic 900 MHz RBS antenna with nine dipole radiators Figure B.26 \u2013 Line 1, 2 and 3 near-field positions for full wave and ray tracing validation <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | ||||||
| 148<\/td>\n | Figure B.27 \u2013 Generic 1 800 MHz RBS antenna with five slot radiators Table B.25 \u2013 Validation 1 full wave field reference results <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | ||||||
| 149<\/td>\n | Table B.26 \u2013 Validation 2 full wave field reference results <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | ||||||
| 152<\/td>\n | Table B.27 \u2013 Sample template for estimating the expanded uncertaintyof a full wave SAR computation <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | ||||||
| 154<\/td>\n | Figure B.28 \u2013 RBS antenna placed in front of a multi-layered lossy cylinder Table B.28 \u2013 Validation reference SAR results for computation method <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | ||||||
| 155<\/td>\n | B.5 Extrapolation from the evaluated SAR \/ RF field strength to the required assessment condition B.5.1 Extrapolation method <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | ||||||
| 156<\/td>\n | B.5.2 Extrapolation to maximum RF field strength using broadband measurements B.5.3 Extrapolation to maximum RF field strength for frequency and code selective measurements <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | ||||||
| 157<\/td>\n | B.5.4 Influence of traffic in real operating network B.6 Summation of multiple RF fields B.6.1 Applicability Figure B.29 \u2013 Time variation over 24 h of the exposure induced by GSM 1\u200a800 MHz (left) and FM (right) both normalized to mean <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | ||||||
| 158<\/td>\n | B.6.2 Uncorrelated fields B.6.3 Correlated fields B.6.4 Ambient fields <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | ||||||
| 159<\/td>\n | Annex C (informative)Rationale supporting simplified product installation criteria C.1 General C.2 Class E2 Figure C.1 \u2013 Measured ER as a function of distance for a low power BS (G = 5 dBi, f = 2\u200a100 MHz) transmitting with an EIRP of 2 W (class E2) and 10 W (class E10) <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | ||||||
| 160<\/td>\n | C.3 Class E10 C.4 Class E100 Figure C.2 \u2013 Minimum installation height as a function of transmitting power corresponding to class E10 <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | ||||||
| 161<\/td>\n | Figure C.3 \u2013 Compliance distance in the main lobe as a function of EIRP established according to the farfield formula corresponding to class E100 Figure C.4 \u2013 Minimum installation height as a function of transmitting power corresponding to class E100 <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | ||||||
| 162<\/td>\n | C.5 Class E+ Figure C.5 \u2013 Averaged power density at ground level for various installation configurations of equipment with 100 W EIRP (class E100) <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | ||||||
| 163<\/td>\n | Figure C.6 \u2013 Compliance distance in the main lobe as a function of EIRP established according to the farfield formula corresponding to class E+ Figure C.7 \u2013 Minimum installation height as a function of transmitting power corresponding to class E+ <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | ||||||
| 164<\/td>\n | Annex D (informative)Guidance on comparing evaluated parameters with a limit value D.1 Overview D.2 Information required to compare evaluated value against limit value D.3 Performing a limit comparison at a given confidence level <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | ||||||
| 165<\/td>\n | D.4 Performing a limit comparison using a process based assessment scheme <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | ||||||
| 166<\/td>\n | Annex E (informative)Uncertainty E.1 Background E.2 Requirement to estimate uncertainty <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | ||||||
| 167<\/td>\n | E.3 How to estimate uncertainty E.4 Guidance on uncertainty and assessment schemes E.4.1 General E.4.2 Overview of assessment schemes <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | ||||||
| 168<\/td>\n | E.4.3 Examples of assessment schemes <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | ||||||
| 169<\/td>\n | Figure E.1 \u2013 Examples of general assessment schemes <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | ||||||
| 170<\/td>\n | Figure E.2 \u2013 Target uncertainty scheme overview Table E.1 \u2013 Determining target uncertainty <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | ||||||
| 171<\/td>\n | E.4.4 Assessment schemes and compliance probabilities <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | ||||||
| 172<\/td>\n | Table E.2 \u2013 Monte Carlo simulation of 10 000 trials, both surveyorand auditor using best estimate Table E.3 \u2013 Monte Carlo simulation of 10 000 trials, both surveyorand auditor using target uncertainty of 4 dB <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | ||||||
| 173<\/td>\n | E.5 Guidance on uncertainty E.5.1 Overview Table E.4 \u2013 Monte Carlo simulation of 10 000 trials surveyor uses upper 95 % CI vs. auditor uses lower 95 % CI <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | ||||||
| 174<\/td>\n | E.5.2 Measurement uncertainty and confidence levels Figure E.3 \u2013 Probability of the true value being above (respectively below) the evaluated value depending on the confidence level assuming a normal distribution <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | ||||||
| 175<\/td>\n | E.6 Applying uncertainty for compliance assessments E.7 Example influence quantities for field measurements E.7.1 General <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | ||||||
| 176<\/td>\n | E.7.2 Calibration uncertainty of measurement antenna or field probe E.7.3 Frequency response of the measurement antenna or field probe <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | ||||||
| 177<\/td>\n | Figure E.4 \u2013 Plot of the calibration factors for E (not E2) provided from an example calibration report for an electric field probe <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | ||||||
| 178<\/td>\n | E.7.4 Isotropy of the measurement antenna or field probe E.7.5 Frequency response of the spectrum analyser E.7.6 Temperature response of a broadband field probe E.7.7 Linearity deviation of a broadband field probe E.7.8 Mismatch uncertainty <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | ||||||
| 179<\/td>\n | E.7.9 Deviation of the experimental source from numerical source E.7.10 Meter fluctuation uncertainty for time varying signals E.7.11 Uncertainty due to power variation in the RF source E.7.12 Uncertainty due to field gradients <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | ||||||
| 180<\/td>\n | Table E.5 \u2013 Guidance on minimum separation distances for some dipole lengths to ensure that the uncertainty does not exceed 5 % or 10 % in a measurement of E <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | ||||||
| 181<\/td>\n | E.7.13 Mutual coupling between measurement antenna or isotropic probe and object Table E.6 \u2013 Guidance on minimum separation distances for some loop diameters to ensure that the uncertainty does notexceed 5 % or 10 % in a measurement of H Table E.7 \u2013 Example minimum separation conditionsfor selected dipole lengths for 10 % uncertainty in E <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | ||||||
| 182<\/td>\n | E.7.14 Uncertainty due to field scattering from the surveyor\u2019s body Figure E.5 \u2013 Computational model used for the variational analysis of reflected RF fields from the front of a surveyor <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | ||||||
| 183<\/td>\n | E.7.15 Measurement device E.7.16 Fields out of measurement range Table E.8 \u2013 Standard estimates of dB variation for the perturbations in front of a surveyor due to body reflected fields as described in Figure E.5 Table E.9 \u2013 Standard uncertainty (u) estimates for E and H due to body reflections from the surveyor for common radio services derived from estimates provided in Table E.8 <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | ||||||
| 184<\/td>\n | E.7.17 Noise E.7.18 Integration time E.7.19 Power chain E.7.20 Positioning system E.7.21 Matching between probe and the EUT E.7.22 Drifts in output power of the EUT, probe, temperature, and humidity E.7.23 Perturbation by the environment <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | ||||||
| 185<\/td>\n | E.8 Example influence quantities for RF field strength computations by ray tracing or full wave methods E.8.1 General E.8.2 System <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | ||||||
| 186<\/td>\n | E.8.3 Technique uncertainties E.8.4 Environmental uncertainties <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | ||||||
| 187<\/td>\n | E.9 Influence quantities for SAR measurements E.9.1 General E.9.2 Post-processing E.9.3 Device holder <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | ||||||
| 188<\/td>\n | E.9.4 Test sample positioning Figure E.6 \u2013 Positioning device and different positioning errors <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | ||||||
| 189<\/td>\n | E.9.5 Phantom shell uncertainty E.9.6 SAR correction \/ target liquid permittivity and conductivity E.9.7 Liquid permittivity and conductivity measurements <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | ||||||
| 190<\/td>\n | E.9.8 Liquid temperature E.10 Influence quantities for SAR calculations E.11 Spatial averaging E.11.1 General Figure E.7 \u2013 Physical model of Rayleigh (a) and Rice (b) small-scale fading variations Table E.10 \u2013 Maximum sensitivity coefficients for liquid permittivity and conductivity over the frequency range 300 MHz to 6 GHz <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | ||||||
| 191<\/td>\n | E.11.2 Small-scale fading variations E.11.3 Error on the estimation of local average power density Figure E.8 \u2013 Example of E field strength variations in line ofsight of an antenna operating at 2,2 GHz <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | ||||||
| 192<\/td>\n | E.11.4 Error on the estimation of local average power density E.11.5 Characterization of environment statistical properties Figure E.9 \u2013 Error at 95% on average power estimation <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | ||||||
| 193<\/td>\n | E.11.6 Characterization of different averaging schemes Figure E.10 \u2013 343 measurement positions building a cube (centre) and different templates consisting of a different number of positions Table E.11 \u2013 Uncertainty at 95 % for different fading models <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | ||||||
| 194<\/td>\n | Figure E.11 \u2013 Moving a template (Line 3) through the CUBE <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | ||||||
| 195<\/td>\n | Table E.12 \u2013 Correlation coefficients for GSM 900 and DCS 1800 <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | ||||||
| 196<\/td>\n | Figure E.12 \u2013 Standard deviations for GSM 900, DCS 1800 and UMTS Table E.13 \u2013 Variations of the standard deviations for the GSM 900, DCS 1800 and UMTS frequency band <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | ||||||
| 197<\/td>\n | E.12 Influence of human body on probe measurements of the electrical field strength E.12.1 Simulations of the influence of human body on probe measurements based on the Method of Moments (Surface Equivalence Principle) Table E.14 \u2013 Examples of total uncertainty calculation <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | ||||||
| 198<\/td>\n | Figure E.13 \u2013 Simulation arrangement Figure E.14 \u2013 Body influence <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | ||||||
| 199<\/td>\n | E.12.2 Comparison with measurements E.12.3 Conclusions Figure E.15 \u2013 Simulation arrangement Table E.15 \u2013 Maximum simulated error due to the influence of a human body on the measurement values of an omni-directional probe Table E.16 \u2013 Measured influence of a human body on omni-directional probe measurements <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | ||||||
| 200<\/td>\n | Annex F (informative)Technology-specific guidance F.1 Overview to guidance on specific technologies F.2 Summary of technology-specific information <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | ||||||
| 201<\/td>\n | Table F.1 \u2013 Technology specific information <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | ||||||
| 204<\/td>\n | F.3 Guidance on spectrum analyser settings F.3.1 Overview of spectrum analyser settings F.3.2 Detection algorithms <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | ||||||
| 205<\/td>\n | F.3.3 Resolution bandwidth and channel power processing Figure F.1 \u2013 Spectral occupancy for GMSK <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | ||||||
| 206<\/td>\n | Figure F.2 \u2013 Spectral occupancy for CDMA <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | ||||||
| 207<\/td>\n | F.3.4 Integration per service Table F.2 \u2013 Example of spectrum analyser settings for an integration per service <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | ||||||
| 208<\/td>\n | F.4 Constant power components F.4.1 TDMA\/FDMA technology F.4.2 WCDMA\/UMTS technology Table F.3 \u2013 Example constant power components for specific TDMA\/FDMA technologies <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | ||||||
| 209<\/td>\n | F.4.3 OFDM technology F.5 WCDMA measurement and calibration using a code domain analyser F.5.1 WCDMA measurements \u2013 General F.5.2 Requirements for the code domain analyser Figure F.3 \u2013 Channel allocation for a WCDMA signal <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | ||||||
| 210<\/td>\n | F.5.3 Calibration Table F.4 \u2013 WCDMA decoder requirements Table F.5 \u2013 Signal configurations <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | ||||||
| 211<\/td>\n | Table F.6 \u2013 WCDMA generator setting for power linearity Table F.7 \u2013 WCDMA generator setting for decoder calibration <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | ||||||
| 212<\/td>\n | F.6 Wi-Fi measurements F.6.1 General F.6.2 Integration time for reproducible measurements Figure F.4 \u2013 Example of Wi-Fi frames Table F.8 \u2013 WCDMA generator setting for reflection coefficient measurement <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | ||||||
| 213<\/td>\n | F.6.3 Channel occupation F.6.4 Some considerations Figure F.5 \u2013 Channel occupation versus the integration time for IEEE 802.11b standard Figure F.6 \u2013 Channel occupation versus nominal throughput ratefor IEEE 802.11b\/g standards <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | ||||||
| 214<\/td>\n | F.6.5 Scalability by channel occupation F.6.6 Influence of the application layers F.7 LTE measurements for Frequency Division Duplexing (FDD) F.7.1 Overview Figure F.7 \u2013 Wi-Fi spectrum trace snapshot <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | ||||||
| 215<\/td>\n | F.7.2 Maximum LTE exposure evaluation Figure F.8 \u2013 Frame structure of transmission signal for LTE downlink <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | ||||||
| 217<\/td>\n | Table F.9 \u2013 Theoretical extrapolation factor, NRS, based on frame structure given in 3GPP TS 36.104 [10] <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | ||||||
| 218<\/td>\n | F.7.3 Instantaneous LTE exposure evaluation F.7.4 MIMO multiplexing of LTE base station Figure F.9 \u2013 Examples of received waves from LTE downlink signals using a spectrum analyser using zero span mode <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | ||||||
| 219<\/td>\n | F.8 LTE measurements for Time Division Duplexing (TDD) F.8.1 General F.8.2 Definitions and transmission modes <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | ||||||
| 220<\/td>\n | F.8.3 TDD frame structure <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | ||||||
| 221<\/td>\n | Figure F.10 \u2013 Frame structure type 2 (for 5 ms switch-point periodicity) Figure F.11 \u2013 Frame structure of transmission signal for TDD LTE <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | ||||||
| 222<\/td>\n | F.8.4 Maximum LTE exposure evaluation Table F.10 \u2013 Configuration of special subframe (lengths of DwPTS\/GP\/UpPTS) Table F.11 \u2013 Uplink-downlink configurations <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | ||||||
| 223<\/td>\n | Figure F.12 \u2013 PBCH measurement example <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | ||||||
| 225<\/td>\n | F.9 Establishing compliance boundaries using numerical simulations of MIMO array antennas emitting correlated wave-forms F.9.1 General Figure F.13 \u2013 PBCH measurement example spectrum analyser using zero span mode <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | ||||||
| 226<\/td>\n | F.9.2 Field combining near radio base stations for correlated exposure with the purpose of establishing compliance boundaries Figure F.14 \u2013 MIMO array antenna with densely packed columns <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | ||||||
| 227<\/td>\n | F.9.3 Numerical simulations of MIMO array antennas with densely packed columns F.9.4 Numerical simulations of large MIMO array antennas <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | ||||||
| 228<\/td>\n | F.10 Smart antennas F.10.1 Overview F.10.2 Deterministic conservative approach F.10.3 Statistical conservative approach <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | ||||||
| 229<\/td>\n | F.10.4 Example approaches Figure F.15 \u2013 Plan view representation of statistical conservative model <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | ||||||
| 237<\/td>\n | Figure F.16 \u2013 Binomial cumulative probability functionfor N = 24, PR = 0,125 <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | ||||||
| 238<\/td>\n | F.10.5 Smart antenna (TD-LTE) F.11 Establishing compliance boundary for systems using dish antennas F.11.1 General Figure F.17 \u2013 Binomial cumulative probability function for N = 18, PR = 2\/7 <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | ||||||
| 239<\/td>\n | F.11.2 Overview F.11.3 Compliance boundary of a dish antenna <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | ||||||
| 240<\/td>\n | Figure F.18 \u2013 Flowchart for the assessment of EMF compliance boundary in the line of sight of dish antennas (from [11]) <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | ||||||
| 241<\/td>\n | Bibliography <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/table>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Determination of RF field strength, power density and SAR in the vicinity of radiocommunication base stations for the purpose of evaluating human exposure (IEC 62232:2017)<\/b><\/p>\n |