Multiyear Trans-Horizon Radio Propagation Measurements at 3.5 GHz

The design, realization and measurement results of a high accuracy multiyear 3.5 GHz trans-horizon radio propagation measurement system are discussed, with both emphasis on the results and implemented technical measures to enhance the accuracy and overall reliability of the measurements. The propagation measurements have been performed on two different paths of 253 and 234 km length, using two transmitters and one receiver in the period September 2013 till November 2016. One of the paths travels over wetland, the other path can be considered as a land path. On each path an additional transmitter is placed at 107 km (in the 253 km path) and 84 km (in the 234 km path) from the receiver. With this arrangement, the correlation between two non-aligned paths of comparable length, and two aligned paths of dissimilar length, were studied. The measurements show that for the land path, the predicted ITU-R P.452-16 CDF (Cumulative Distribution Function) typically shows 5 dB higher path loss than the actual measured CDF for the region of interest; anomalous propagation. This means that the measured signal is on average weaker than predicted (a higher path loss). For the wetland path the actual CDF is very close to the predicted CDF. Also, the measurements reveal that typically 30% of the anomalous propagation occurrences are correlated with other paths

Multiyear trans-horizon radio propagation measurements at 3.5 GHz:system design and measurement results over land and wetland paths in the Netherlands

The design, realization, and measurement results of a high-accuracy multiyear 3.5 GHz trans-horizon radio propagation measurement system are discussed, with both emphasis on the results and implemented technical measures to enhance the accuracy and overall reliability of the measurements. The propagation measurements have been performed on two different paths of 253 and 234 km length, using two transmitters and one receiver in the period September 2013 till November 2016. One of the paths travels over wetland; the other path can be considered as a land path. On each path, an additional transmitter is placed at 107 km (in the 253 km path) and 84 km (in the 234 km path) from the receiver. With this arrangement, the correlation between two nonaligned paths of comparable length, and two aligned paths of dissimilar length, was studied. The measurements show that for the land path, the predicted ITU-R P.452-16 cumulative distribution function (CDF) typically shows 5 dB higher path loss than the actual measured CDF for the region of interest; anomalous propagation. This means that the measured signal is on average weaker than predicted (a higher path loss). For the wetland path, the actual CDF is very close to the predicted CDF. Also, the measurements reveal that typically 30% of the anomalous propagation occurrences are correlated with other paths

Prediction of RF-EFM exposure levels in large outdoor areas through car-mounted measurements on the enveloping roads

Knowledge of spatial and temporal trends in the environmental exposure to radiofrequency electromagnetic fields (RF-EMF) is a key prerequisite for RF-EMF risk assessment studies attempting to establish a link between RF-EMF and potential effects on human health as well as on fauna and flora. In this paper, we determined the validity of RF exposure modelling based on inner-area kriging interpolation of measurements on the surrounding streets. The results vary depending on area size and shape and structural factors; a Spearman coefficient of 0.8 and a relative error of less than 3.5 dB are achieved on a data set featuring a closed measurement ring around a decently sized area (1 km2, with an average minimum distance of the encircled area to the ring of less than 100 m), containing mainly low, detached buildings. In larger areas, additional inner-area sampling is advised, lowering the average minimum distance between sampled and interpolated locations to 100 m, to achieve the same level of accuracy. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envint.2016.06.006 LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/john-bolte-0856134

Comparison of Low-Cost 5G Electromagnetic Field Sensors.

This paper compares different low-cost sensors that can measure (5G) RF-EMF exposure. The sensors are either commercially available (off-the-shelf Software Defined Radio (SDR) Adalm Pluto) or constructed by a research institution (i.e., imec-WAVES, Ghent University and Smart Sensor Systems research group ((SR)-R-3), The Hague University of Applied Sciences). Both in-lab (GTEM cell) and in-situ measurements have been performed for this comparison. The in-lab measurements tested the linearity and sensitivity, which can then be used to calibrate the sensors. The in-situ testing confirmed that the low-cost hardware sensors and SDR can be used to assess the RF-EMF radiation. The variability between the sensors was 1.78 dB on average, with a maximum deviation of 5.26 dB. Values between 0.09 V/m and 2.44 V/m were obtained at a distance of about 50 m from the base station. These devices can be used to provide the general public and governments with temporal and spatial 5G electromagnetic field values

In-Situ 5G NR Base Station Exposure of the General Public: Comparison of Assessment Methods.

New measurement methods and equipment for correct 5G New Radio (NR) electromagnetic field (EMF) in-situ exposure assessment of instantaneous time-averaged exposure (E-avg) and maximum extrapolated field exposure (E-max) are proposed. The different options are investigated with in-situ measurements around 5G NR base stations (FR1) in different countries. The maximum electric field values satisfy the ICNIRP 2020 limit (maximum 7.7%). The difference between E-max and E-avg is <3 dB for the different measurement equipment at multiple sites in case there is only self-generated traffic. However, in a more realistic scenario, E-avg cannot be used to assess the exposure correctly due to influence of other users as the spatial distribution of user equipment (UE) influences E-avg, while E-max is not affected. However, when multiple UEs are collocated, there is no influence of the number of UEs. A broadband measurement can give a first impression of the RF-EMF exposure up to 700 m, but is not enough to assess the 5G-NR exposure