19
FEBRUARY 2005 ICAO AMCP WG F ULTRA WIDE BAND A EUROPEAN PERSPECTIVE Presented by: John Mettrop, UK CAA Dale Stacey, Eurocontrol
FEBRUARY 2005 ICAO AMCP WG F
ULTRA WIDE BAND
A EUROPEAN PERSPECTIVE
Presented by: John Mettrop, UK CAA Dale Stacey, Eurocontrol
FEBRUARY 2005 ICAO AMCP WG F
INTRODUCTION
INTRODUCTION• What is UWB ?• History, how did it start • Projected market• The Scenario• Major Stakeholders• External View• Proposed limits (3 masks)• Advantage of European Mask• Methodology• Aviation S/I limits• Aviation band overlay• Conclusions• Unfinished work
FEBRUARY 2005 ICAO AMCP WG F
What is Ultra Wide Band ?
• Ultra Wide Band (UWB) Services are not currently covered under the service definitions of the ITU radio regulations
• UWB technology uses sharp impulses to pass information, of very low power. (By fourier analysis sharp pulses in time domain = broad spread out bandwidth in frequency domain
• The broad definition that seems to be accepted by the radio community is Ultra Wideband is ‘when the absolute bandwidth of the signal being conveyed is equal or greater than 20% of the central carrier frequency OR a signal whose absolute bandwidth is 500 MHz or more.’ (taken from ECC report 64, and TG1/8 definitions)
Powe r
Tim e
Powe r
Fre q ue nc y
FEBRUARY 2005 ICAO AMCP WG F
History, how did it start !
• The opportunist mass marketeers in the US spotted a loophole in the FCC regulations pertaining to maximum RF emission limits permitted from an electronic box.( FCC part 15 limits -41.3 dBm/MHz flat limit corresponds to a 500μV field strength measured at 3 metres from ‘dirty’ device.)
• Equipment suppliers saw this as a ‘window of opportunity’
• Lobbied the US government trade and industry sector to support developing this opportunity, and won !
• FCC announced a standard mask in favour of the UWB community in april ’02’ (Ignored some of the concerns of Aviation, (ie NTIA studies))
FEBRUARY 2005 ICAO AMCP WG F
Projected Market
• It is estimated (by FCC and ECC) that there will be three different applications coming under the heading of UWB
• Wall imaging and medical imaging equipment
• Through wall imaging and surveillance
• Communication and measuring equipment (98% of units)
FEBRUARY 2005 ICAO AMCP WG F
THE SCENARIO
• Aggregate units/km2 - NO ONE KNOWS !
• Guesses are for upto 10,000 per square kilometre
• an activity factor of 5% max (this is supplied by the manufacturers)
• outdoor factor of 20%
• Studies are based on this !
FEBRUARY 2005 ICAO AMCP WG F
Major stakeholders in UWB
• FCC (initiators) • ITU TG 1-8 formed ‘Compatibility
between ultra-wideband devices (UWB) and radiocommunications services’ , specifically to study UWB, first meeting 21-24 january 03
• In Europe TG 3 was set up in the ECC specifically to answer the questions of UWB and provide a balanced view
• Also of recent seen a growth in the pro UWB community in Europe comprising the major communication equipment manufacturers keen to jump on this opportunity (significantly influencial in TG3)
• TG3 is also balanced by the large user radio community interests in Europe (Producing a more balanced and pragmatic view to study)
FEBRUARY 2005 ICAO AMCP WG F
PROPOSED LIMITS
3 MAIN OPTIONS.
• Original US proposed flat limit of -41.3 dBm/MHz
• FCC Emission mask (of 22nd april 02)
• Proposal by ECC for a slope mask
Nb there are some minor submasks of these not discussed here
FEBRUARY 2005 ICAO AMCP WG F
FCC Family of masks
-80
-70
-60
-50
-40
-30
-20
-10
0
0,1 1 10 100
frequency GHz
UW
B E
IRP
lim
it d
Bm
GPR&Wall Imaging
Through wall 1
through wall 2
Surveillance applications
Medical
Vehicular radar
indoor comms
indoor comms
outdoor comms
FEBRUARY 2005 ICAO AMCP WG F
The advantage to Aviation of the ECC slope mask
• Aviations requirements have generally been incorporated
• It presents the limits most favourable to the Aviation community
• It enables the UWB to develop technology that is less likely to cause problems to Aviation
FEBRUARY 2005 ICAO AMCP WG F
METHODOLOGY FOR ARRIVING AT UNWANTED UWB LIMITS
Sequence:-1. Determine minimum (usually ICAO defined) wanted receive signal
levels into Aviation system receiver2. Establish S/I (or I/N) criteria (again usually from ICAO
documentation or ITU recs)3. Calculate the maximum unwanted (aggregate) interference signal
power permissible at an equivalent isotropic antenna input4. Establish the minimum distance criteria between UWB device and
Aviation system receiver5. Calculate back using fspl, the maximum output EIRP/MHz of UWB
signal power (for single and multiple entry scenarios)
FEBRUARY 2005 ICAO AMCP WG F
AVIATION S/I LIMITS (STEP 2)(intra system from ICAO Annex 10)
System
Frequency band (MHz)
Rx Location
Intra-system S/I (dB)
NDB 0.255 – 0.5265 Airborne 15 Ground 15
HF Comms 2.85 – 22 Airborne 15
Marker Beacon 74.8 - 75.2 Airborne 20 ILS Localiser 108 - 112 Airborne 20 VOR 108 - 117.975 Airborne 20 GBAS 108 - 117.975 Airborne 26
Ground 20 VHF Comms, VDL Mode 4
108 – 137 Airborne 20 Ground 20 VHF Comms,
VDL Mode 2&3 117.975 – 137
Airborne 20 Ground 20 VHF Comms,
8.33 kHz AM 117.975 - 137
Airborne 20 Ground 20 VHF Comms,
25 kHz AM 117.975 - 137
Airborne 20 ILS Glidepath 328.6 - 335.4 Airborne 20 50cm Radar 590 – 598 Ground 6
Ground 8 DME/ TACAN 940 - 1215
Airborne 8 Airborne 12 Secondary Surveillance
Radar 1030 & 1090
Ground 12 23cm Radar 1215 – 1350 Ground 6 10cm Radar 2700 – 3100 Ground 10
Airborne
Satellite Comms 1545 - 1559 & 1645.5 - 1660 Satellite
Radio Altimeters 4200 – 4400 Airborne 6 MLS 5030 – 5150 Airborne 25 Weather Radar 5 350 – 5470 Airborne Doppler Radar 8750 – 8850 Airborne 3cm Radar 9000 - 9500 Ground 6
FEBRUARY 2005 ICAO AMCP WG F
MAXIMUM ACCEPTABLE UWB PSD FOR KNOWN MINIMUM SEPARATION DISTANCE (extract from ECC report 64), (STEP 3,4,5)
System
Frequency band (MHz)
Rx Location
Minimum Separation
Distance (m)
Single UWB PSD limit
Density of active UWB transmitters (/km²)
5 50 500 (dBm/MHz) UWB PSD limit (dBm/MHz)
NDB 0.255 – 0.5265
Airborne 300
-26 -34.5 -44.5 -54.5 Ground
HF Comms 2.85 – 22 Airborne 300
Marker Beacon 74.8 - 75.2 Airborne 100 -16.5 -15.8 -25.8 -35.8 ILS Localiser 108 - 112 Airborne 50 -55.6 -49.1 -59.1 -69.1 VOR 108 - 117.975 Airborne 100 -44.5 -43.9 -53.9 -63.9 GBAS 108 - 117.975 Airborne 30 -52.5 -41.8 -51.8 -61.8
Ground 30 -54.1 -53.8 -63.8 -73.8 VHF Comms, VDL Mode 4
108 – 137 Airborne 300 -27.2 -46.1 -56.1 -66.1 Ground 30 -60.9 --66.6 --76.6 -86.6 VHF Comms,
VDL Mode 2&3 117.975 – 137
Airborne 300 -31.9 -50.8 -60.8 -70.8 Ground 30 -59.4 -59.1 -69.1 -79.1 VHF Comms,
8.33 kHz AM 117.975 - 137
Airborne 100 -45 -54.7 -64.7 -74.7 Ground 30 -63.9 --63.9 -73.9 -83.9 VHF Comms,
25 kHz AM 117.975 - 137
Airborne 100 -49.5 -59.2 -69.2 -79.2 ILS Glidepath 328.6 - 335.4 Airborne 50 -37.4 -30.9 -40.9 -50.9 50cm Radar 590 – 598 Ground 400 -76.1 TBD TBD TBD
Ground 30 -61.2 -48.7 -58.7 -68.7 DME/ TACAN 940 - 1 215
Airborne 100 -36.8 -34.3 -44.3 -54.3 Airborne 100 -34.8 TBD TBD TBD Secondary
Surveillance Radar
1030 & 1090 Ground 30
-71.7 TBD TBD TBD 23cm Radar 1 215 – 1350 Ground 400 -82.4 TBD TBD TBD 10cm Radar 2700 – 3100 Ground 170 -82.6 TBD TBD TBD
Airborne
Satellite Comms 1545 - 1559 & 1645.5 - 1660 Satellite
Radio Altimeters 4200 – 4400 Airborne 50 -47.3 -38.7 -48.7 -58.7 MLS 5030 – 5150 Airborne 50 -43.3 -34.7 -44.7 -54.7 Weather Radar 5350 – 5470 Airborne 300
FEBRUARY 2005 ICAO AMCP WG F
AVIATION BAND OVERLAY WITH UWB SINGLE LIMIT MAXIMUM EIRP'S
-250
-200
-150
-100
-50
0
0,0001 0,001 0,01 0,1 1 10 100
frequency GHz
UW
B E
IRP
lim
it d
Bm
FEBRUARY 2005 ICAO AMCP WG F
AVIATION BAND OVERLAY WITH UWB AGGREGATE SINGLE LIMIT MAXIMUM EIRP'S (NOTE NOT ALL RADARS ARE SHOWN)
-250
-200
-150
-100
-50
0
0,0001 0,001 0,01 0,1 1 10 100
frequency GHz
UW
B E
IRP
lim
it d
Bm
FEBRUARY 2005 ICAO AMCP WG F
Unfinished work and further questions
• Modelling radar antennas and refining compatibility criteria between UWB and radar.
• Some confirmation of the noise like properties of UWB• Some practical validation of system interference limits• Some missing values in the Aviation portfolio (ie Radars)• Gaining Aviation support to favour the European ECC report 64
approach over the FCC proposals• What if the predicted maximum deployment of 500 units/km2 with
activity factor 5% and outdoor deployment factor=20% is wrong !• How can we be assured aggregate unit on utilisation will be less than
5% activity per device? And 80% of units will be indoor.
FEBRUARY 2005 ICAO AMCP WG F
CONCLUSION
The Aviation community is strongly encouraged :-• to stand behind the work of ECC TG3. Aviations requirements have been
considered and incorporated into the output study document ECC report 64 this position and European proposals provide the best means to protect Aviations spectrum interests from the harmful effects of UWB.
• Oppose the flat limits of -41.3 dBm and the alternative FCC mask proposed in april 2002 on account that these proposals blatantly disregard Aviations requirement to interference free spectrum !
• Note that the values provided so far are largely theoretical and some practical validation is required of the inter system S/I values and validation of the properties of UWB to be truly ‘noise like’.
• To note that there are still some open ended issues with compatibility between UWB and radar systems, this will require more development work on the radar antenna models, maybe involving a statistical approach
• Note that for the time being the above steps will alleviate the threat of UWB to Aviation systems, however, this doesn’t guarantee the scenario cannot change and UWB could become a threat to Aviation again !
