ITU-T SERIES K SUPP 14-2018 The impact of RF-EMF exposure limits stricter than the ICNIRP or IEEE guidelines on 4G and 5G mobile network deployment (Study Group 5).pdf

《ITU-T SERIES K SUPP 14-2018 The impact of RF-EMF exposure limits stricter than the ICNIRP or IEEE guidelines on 4G and 5G mobile network deployment (Study Group 5).pdf》由会员分享，可在线阅读，更多相关《ITU-T SERIES K SUPP 14-2018 The impact of RF-EMF exposure limits stricter than the ICNIRP or IEEE guidelines on 4G and 5G mobile network deployment (Study Group 5).pdf（20页珍藏版）》请在麦多课文档分享上搜索。

1、 I n t e r n a t i o n a l T e l e c o m m u n i c a t i o n U n i o n ITU-T Series K TELECOMMUNICATION STANDARDIZATION SECTOR OF ITU Supplement 14 (05/2018) SERIES K: PROTECTION AGAINST INTERFERENCE The impact of RF-EMF exposure limits stricter than the ICNIRP or IEEE guidelines on 4G and 5G mobile

2、 network deployment ITU-T K-series Recommendations Supplement 14 K series Supplement 14 (05/2018) i Supplement 14 to ITU-T K-series Recommendations The impact of RF-EMF exposure limits stricter than the ICNIRP or IEEE guidelines on 4G and 5G mobile network deployment Summary Radio frequency electrom

3、agnetic field (RF-EMF) exposure limits have become a critical concern for further deployment of wireless networks, especially in countries, regions and even specific cities where RF-EMF limits are significantly stricter than the International Commission for Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP)

4、 or Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) guidelines. This problem currently affects several countries such as China, India, Poland, Russia, Italy and Switzerland, regions of Belgium or cities such as Paris. Supplement 14 to the ITU-T K-series of Recommendations provides an overvi

5、ew of some of the challenges faced by countries, regions and cities which are about to deploy 4G or 5G infrastructures. This Supplement provides information on a simulation on the impact of RF-EMF limits that was carried out in Poland as an example of a wider phenomenon, which is applicable to sever

6、al other countries, which have set limits that are stricter than those contained in the ICNIRP or IEEE guidelines. The results of the simulation indicate that where RF-EMF limits are stricter than ICNIRP or IEEE guidelines, the network capacity buildout (both 4G and 5G) might be severely constrained

7、 and might prevent addressing of the growing data traffic demand and the launching of new services on existing mobile networks. History Edition Recommendation Approval Study Group Unique ID* 1.0 ITU-T K Suppl. 14 2018-05-25 5 11.1002/1000/13643 Keywords 4G, 5G, deployment, exposure limits, infrastru

8、ctures, power density limit, RF-EMF. * To access the Recommendation, type the URL http:/handle.itu.int/ in the address field of your web browser, followed by the Recommendations unique ID. For example, http:/handle.itu.int/11.1002/1000/11830-en. ii K series Supplement 14 (05/2018) FOREWORD The Inter

9、national Telecommunication Union (ITU) is the United Nations specialized agency in the field of telecommunications, information and communication technologies (ICTs). The ITU Telecommunication Standardization Sector (ITU-T) is a permanent organ of ITU. ITU-T is responsible for studying technical, op

10、erating and tariff questions and issuing Recommendations on them with a view to standardizing telecommunications on a worldwide basis. The World Telecommunication Standardization Assembly (WTSA), which meets every four years, establishes the topics for study by the ITU-T study groups which, in turn,

11、 produce Recommendations on these topics. The approval of ITU-T Recommendations is covered by the procedure laid down in WTSA Resolution 1. In some areas of information technology which fall within ITU-Ts purview, the necessary standards are prepared on a collaborative basis with ISO and IEC. NOTE I

12、n this publication, the expression “Administration“ is used for conciseness to indicate both a telecommunication administration and a recognized operating agency. Compliance with this publication is voluntary. However, the publication may contain certain mandatory provisions (to ensure, e.g., intero

13、perability or applicability) and compliance with the publication is achieved when all of these mandatory provisions are met. The words “shall“ or some other obligatory language such as “must“ and the negative equivalents are used to express requirements. The use of such words does not suggest that c

14、ompliance with the publication is required of any party. INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTSITU draws attention to the possibility that the practice or implementation of this publication may involve the use of a claimed Intellectual Property Right. ITU takes no position concerning the evidence, validity or

15、 applicability of claimed Intellectual Property Rights, whether asserted by ITU members or others outside of the publication development process. As of the date of approval of this publication, ITU had not received notice of intellectual property, protected by patents, which may be required to imple

16、ment this publication. However, implementers are cautioned that this may not represent the latest information and are therefore strongly urged to consult the TSB patent database at http:/www.itu.int/ITU-T/ipr/. ITU 2018 All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, by any means

17、 whatsoever, without the prior written permission of ITU. K series Supplement 14 (05/2018) iii Table of Contents Page 1 Scope . 1 2 References . 1 3 Definitions 1 3.1 Terms defined elsewhere 1 3.2 Terms defined in this Supplement 2 4 Abbreviations and acronyms 2 5 Conventions 2 6 EMF exposure limits

18、 should be harmonized worldwide based on international guidelines 2 6.1 Current status on EMF exposure limits worldwide 2 6.2 Impact of the more restrictive RF-EMF exposure limits on existing network . 3 6.3 RF-EMF exposure limits below the ICNIRP or IEEE guidelines will further restrict upcoming 5G

19、 network deployment 3 6.4 Future customer experience will suffer and true 5G is not possible 6 7 Conclusion 7 Appendix I Modelling methodology and key input assumptions . 8 I.1 Modelling methodology . 8 I.2 Key input assumptions used in the model 8 Bibliography. 11 K series Supplement 14 (05/2018) 1

20、 Supplement 14 to ITU-T K-series Recommendations The impact of RF-EMF exposure limits stricter than the ICNIRP or IEEE guidelines on 4G and 5G mobile network deployment 1 Scope This Supplement discusses the impact on mobile networks of RF-EMF exposure limits that are more restrictive than the ICNIRP

21、 b-ICNIRP 1998 or IEEE b-IEEE C95.1 guidelines. This Supplement investigates the impact on 4G and 5G deployment and suggests that there is an urgent need to begin a process to harmonize electromagnetic field (EMF) standards worldwide. In this regard, it should be noted that the World Health Organiza

22、tion (WHO) commenced a process of harmonization of EMF standards worldwide b-WHO EMF. 2 References ITU-T K.52 Recommendation ITU-T K.52 (2018), Guidance on complying with limits for human exposure to electromagnetic fields. ITU-T K.70 Recommendation ITU-T K.70 (2018), Mitigation techniques to limit

23、human exposure to EMFs in the vicinity of radiocommunication stations. ITU-T K.91 Recommendation ITU-T K.91 (2018), Guidance for assessment, evaluation and monitoring of human exposure to radio frequency electromagnetic fields. ITU-T K.100 Recommendation ITU-T K.100 (2018), Measurement of radio freq

24、uency electromagnetic fields to determine compliance with human exposure limits when a base station is put into service. ITU-T K.121 Recommendation ITU-T K.121 (2016), Guidance on the environmental management for compliance with radio frequency EMF limits for radiocommunication base stations. IEC 62

25、232 IEC 62232:2017, Determination of RF field strength, power density and SAR in the vicinity of radiocommunication base stations for the purpose of evaluating human exposure. https:/webstore.iec.ch/publication/28673 IEC/TR 62669 IEC/TR 62669:2011, Case studies supporting IEC 62232 Determination of

26、RF field strength and SAR in the vicinity of radiocommunication base stations for the purpose of evaluating human exposure. https:/webstore.iec.ch/publication/7340 3 Definitions 3.1 Terms defined elsewhere This Supplement uses the following terms defined elsewhere: 3.1.1 antenna ITU-T K.70. 3.1.2 el

27、ectromagnetic field (EMF) ITU-T K.91. 3.1.3 exposure ITU-T K.52. 3.1.4 exposure level ITU-T K.52. 3.1.5 exposure limits ITU-T K.70. 3.1.6 power density (S) ITU-T K.52. 2 K series Supplement 14 (05/2018) 3.1.7 radio frequency (RF) ITU-T K.70. 3.2 Terms defined in this Supplement None. 4 Abbreviations

28、 and acronyms This Supplement uses the following abbreviations and acronyms: AR/VR Augmented Reality/Virtual Reality CAGR Compound Annual Growth Rate eMBB Extreme Mobile Broadband EMF Electromagnetic Field FDD Frequency Division Duplexing FWA Fixed Wireless Access MIMO Multiple-input and multiple-ou

29、tput NIR Non-Ionizing Radiation PDL Power Density Limit RF Radio Frequency 5 Conventions None. 6 EMF exposure limits should be harmonized worldwide based on international guidelines 6.1 Current status on EMF exposure limits worldwide International RF-EMF exposure guidelines refer to the guidelines o

30、f the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) b-ICNIRP 1998, or of the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) b-IEEE C95.1. These limits are currently under review b-ICNIRP. Whilst most countries adopted these scientifically based RF-EMF guidelines, a

31、 small group of countries, regions or even cities within the same country, especially in Europe (e.g., Poland, Russia, Italy, Switzerland, Paris city and regions in Belgium), use limits that are ten to a hundred times lower. Limits below the ICNIRP guidelines are not limited to Europe however, China

32、 and India, amongst others, also adopted limits below ICNIRP guidelines. In addition, some countries (e.g., Poland and Italy) apply a very strict measurement methodology, resulting in even stricter RF-EMF requirements. Worldwide limits may be consulted at: http:/apps.who.int/gho/data/node.main.EMFLI

33、MITSPUBLICRADIOFREQUENCY?lang=e. Because disparities in EMF standards around the world have caused increasing public anxiety about EMF exposures from the introduction of new technologies, WHO commenced a process of harmonization of electromagnetic fields (EMF) standards worldwide b-WHO EMF. 6.2 Impa

34、ct of the more restrictive RF-EMF exposure limits on existing networks A report published in 2014 b-GSMA 2014 concluded that EMF exposure limits stricter than the ICNIRP guidelines were a strong limiting factor for the deployment of 4G networks. K series Supplement 14 (05/2018) 3 The strict power de

35、nsity limits result in “waste of spectrum“ and “less flexibility in the network deployment“, i.e., access to and optimal location of sites. Other consequences were reduced coverage, reduced opportunities for site sharing and an increased number of sites needed for delivering the same level of servic

36、e. Based on the findings, this report: called on the European Commission to promote good practice by Member States through harmonization of RF-EMF exposure limit policies based on international guidelines; called on Member States to follow the European Council Recommendation 1999/519/EC b-1999/519/E

37、C and latest SCENIHR (Scientific Committee on Emerging and Newly Identified Health Risks) opinion b-SCENIHR that exposure limit policies should be based on the international guidelines; called on the European Commission and Member States to adopt evidence based policies that enable the deployment of

38、 mobile broadband and other wireless technologies. As of today, the EMF exposure limits have not been harmonized globally, nor on a European level. The consequences described above still apply. Going forward, the strict EMF exposure limits in a number of countries will further harm future network de

39、ployments, in particular 5G, as will be shown in the analyses outlined in this Supplement. 6.3 RF-EMF exposure limits below the ICNIRP or IEEE guidelines will further restrict upcoming 5G network deployment EMF exposure limits that are more strict than the ICNIRP or IEEE guidelines negatively affect

40、 all potential levers to enhance the wireless infrastructure and deployment of 5G: spectrum, technology (determining the spectral efficiency) and network topology (number of sites and sectors). The capacity of a wireless site is a direct function of the amount of spectrum (MHz) combined with the spe

41、ctral efficiency (bit per second per Hz) and with the sites number of sectors. For example, the unfavourable effects of different EMF exposure limits on network roll-out, i.e., deployment of spectrum, technology and sites, have been simulated in Poland. The results are shown in the following analyse

42、s. They also serve as an illustrative example for other countries with power density limits stricter than the ICNIRP or IEEE guidelines, e.g., Russia, India, China, Italy, Paris city, Switzerland, and regions of Belgium. 6.3.1 Lever 1: Spectrum cannot be fully deployed Additional radio frequencies,

43、e.g., 60 MHz (FDD 2x30 MHz) in the 700 MHz spectrum band, 100 MHz in the 2300 MHz band and 400 MHz in the 3.4-3.8 GHz spectrum range have or will become available for 4G and 5G mobile communications in the near future. This would double the available spectrum and capacity in mobile networks for exam

44、ple as shown in Figure 1 for the case of Poland. However, deploying additional spectrum and consequently increasing the transmitted power, on an existing site increases the EMF exposure and hence the power density levels. In dense urban areas and urban areas b-BCG, where distances between antennas a

45、nd people are short already, the strict Polish EMF exposure limits do not allow mobile network operators to use the additional spectrum on most sites. In dense urban areas already some of todays spectrum cannot be used anymore and is wasted. 4 K series Supplement 14 (05/2018) Figure 1 Average spectr

46、um holding (source Office of Electronic Communications, Poland) Large blocks of spectrum are critical for the deployment of 5G technology and thereby increasing speed and capacity. For example, harmonizing the Polish EMF exposure limits in line with ICNIRP guidelines would remove the spectrum roadbl

47、ock. All current spectrum plus the spectrum bands available in the near future could effectively be used by mobile network operators, including critical dense urban and urban areas, see Figure 2. Deploying new spectrum is an effective and efficient way of adding capacity to mobile networks quickly,

48、before large capacity gaps can even occur. Figure 2 Spectrum deployable on average with current and harmonized power density limits (PDLs) (source adapted from Polish mobile network operators b-BCG) K series Supplement 14 (05/2018) 5 6.3.2 Lever 2: Technology innovation is restricted New antenna tec

49、hnologies, such as Massive MIMO and beamforming, or small cells are a key element of future 5G mobile networks. The EMF exposure limits below INCIRP or IEEE guidelines (as shown in the case of Poland), do not in most cases allow mobile network operators to fully leverage these new technologies. Applying beamforming, i.e., further narrowing an antenna beam, would easily exceed the current EMF exposure limits; Deploying small cells in hot spot areas will not be feasible as the curre