5.1.3 Manufacturer declarations

38.8843GPPRelease 17Study on enhanced test methods for Frequency Range 2 (FR2) User Equipment (UE)TS

If a manufacturer declaration is used to inform or optimize a test system parameter, and the DUT is positioned in the test system according to parameters which are informed by this declaration, then the DUT is measured assuming a “white box” configuration. If no manufacturer declaration is used, and the DUT is positioned in the test system according to common procedures, then the DUT is measured assuming a “black box” configuration.

Black box testing requires no knowledge which antenna panel is active at any given time and the detailed location of the active panel within the DUT. In this test configuration, the geometric centre of the DUT is aligned with the centre of the quiet zone as illustrated in Figure 5.1.3-1.

Figure 5.1.3-1: Illustration of black box approach

White box testing on the other hand requires the manufacturer declaration of detailed locations of all antenna panels and which antenna panel is active in any UL/DL test direction In this test configuration, the centre of the radiating aperture (of the active panel) is aligned with the centre of the quiet zone as illustrated in Figure 5.1.3-2.

Figure 5.1.3-2: Illustration of white box approach

The black&white-box approach combines the advantages of both the black and white-box approaches where the antenna phase centre offset(s) are declared, i.e., white-box approach, but the geometric centre of the DUT is aligned with the centre of the QZ, i.e., black-box approach.

The following paragraphs provide further information on the need for the various vendor declarations with the help of sample illustrations. Here, a DUT with three antenna panels is considered shown schematically in Figure 5.1.3-3 on the left. The right side shows coverage sectors and the corresponding antenna panels the DUT would select if the DL was presented from within those sectors. In this example, the red antenna panel would yield the TX beam peak in the horizontal direction; this direction would be identified following the TX beam peak search. For simplicity, most of the arguments in the next few paragraphs are applied to testing in the FF but they can be applied to testing in the NF as well.

Figure 5.1.3-3: Illustration of Sample DUT with three antenna panels

The beam peak search or spherical coverage test case of the DUT utilizing the black-box approach, i.e., none of the antenna offsets are known/declared, is illustrated in Figure 5.1.3-4. Here, the geometric centre of the DUT is aligned with the centre of the QZ (yellow circle). The (green) beam peak search grid points sample the EIRP around the DUT.

Figure 5.1.3-4: Illustration of beam peak search of sample DUT utilizing black-box approach.

Test cases without a 3D scan, e.g., EIRP/EIS test case towards the known TX/RX beam peak direction, utilizing the black-box approach are illustrated in Figure 5.1.3-5. Here, the geometric centre of the DUT is aligned with the centre of the QZ (yellow circle) and the TX beam peak direction is known from a previous beam peak search measurement, e.g., from an IFF system. Hence, the single (green) FF grid point is aligned with the FF TX beam peak direction.

Figure 5.1.3-5: Illustration low UL power test case along TX BP direction of sample DUT utilizing black-box approach.

For the white-box measurement approach, the level of information provided in vendor declarations largely depends on the purpose of test case coverage. If the white-box approach is leveraged for all conformance test cases including the beam peak searches, the total number of panels and the phase centre offsets of each panel need to be declared. Additionally, vendors would have to declare which antenna panel is active for each grid point or test sectors so that the respective antenna panel is aligned with the centre of the QZ during testing. This approach is further illustrated in Figure 5.1.3-6. To sample EIRPs on all beam peak search grid points, three different device positions have to be applied, i.e., for the angular range covering the

– red grid points (declared by OEM), the red antenna panel (location declared by OEM) has to be aligned with the centre of QZ (yellow circle)

– purple grid points (declared by OEM), the purple antenna panel (location declared by OEM) has to be aligned with the centre of QZ (yellow circle)

– blue grid points (declared by OEM), the blue antenna panel (location declared by OEM) has to be aligned with the centre of QZ (yellow circle)

Figure 5.1.3-6: Illustration of beam peak search of sample DUT utilizing white-box approach.

In summary, the information that would have to be declared by the OEMs if the white-box approach is utilized for all conformance test cases is tabulated in Table 5.1.3-1.

Table 5.1.3-1: Sample Vendor Declaration for white box approach supporting all conformance test cases

Number of Antenna
Panels in DUT

#

Antenna Panel #

Phase-centre offset from geometric centre of DUT

Range of Angles covered by Antenna Panel

1

(xoff1, yoff1, zoff1)

(start1 to end1,start1 to end1)

2

(xoff2, yoff2, zoff2)

(start2 to end2,start2 to end2)

N

(xoffN, yoffN, zoffN)

(startN to endN,startN to endN)

Assuming the enhanced test methodology needs to perform beam peak searches and a white box approach was selected, the DUT should be measured in several positions inside the test volume, where two options could be considered:

a. DUT is placed manually in the corresponding off-center positions. This will likely result in significant test time increase and additional MU due to inaccuracies in the alignment of the DUT.

b. x-y-z positioning systems are needed to fully automate testing based on the knowledge of which antenna panel is active in any given UL/DL test direction, as outlined in Figure 5.1.3-6. This will in effect likely result in significant signal ripple and near field coupling effects which is expected to degrade the quality of QZ MU which could offset the offset MU a white box approach eliminates. Such positioning system will furthermore increase test system complexity from a SW and HW perspective as well as test time.

Test cases without a 3D scan, e.g., EIRP/EIS test case towards the known TX/RX beam peak direction, utilizing the white-box approach is illustrated in Figure 5.1.3-7. Here, the phase centre of the red panel (yielding beam peak radiation) of the DUT is aligned with the centre of the QZ (yellow circle) and the TX beam peak direction is known from a previous beam peak search measurement; thus the single (green) grid point is aligned with the FF TX beam peak direction. In this case, only the location of the one antenna panel that yields the beam peak radiation would have to be declared. A sample declaration is shown in Table 5.1.3-2.

Figure 5.1.3-7: Illustration of low UL power test case along TX BP direction of sample DUT utilizing white-box approach.

Table 5.1.3-2: Sample Vendor Declaration for white-box approach supporting low UL power test cases

Antenna Panel (yielding TX beam peak radiation)

Phase-centre offset from geometric centre of DUT

(xoff, yoff, zoff)

Two different black&white-box approaches could be further considered, i.e.,

– Extensive Black&white-box approach: When the NF methodology is used for spherical coverage test cases and for beam peak searches, all active antenna locations are declared together with the angular ranges (theta, phi) each active antenna performs best (when compared to the remaining antenna panels, i.e., the vendor declaration is as outlined in Table 5.1.3-1. Very much similar to the white-box approach with the only difference that the geometric centre of DUT is aligned with the centre of QZ.

– Black&white box: When the NF methodology is used only for EIS based high DL power or EIRP/TRP based low UL power test cases, only the antenna location of the antenna that yields the beam peak needs to be declared, i.e., the vendor declaration is as outlined in Table 5.1.3-2. The geometric centre of DUT is aligned with the centre of QZ.

For test cases focused only on the for EIS based high DL power or EIRP/TRP based low UL power test cases, the key differences are illustrated in Figure 5.1.3-8 for the black-box approach (left), black&white-box approach (centre), and the white-box approach (right). While the black-box approach requires local searches to determine the NF test direction, the need for local searches for the black&white-box approach is FFS. No local search is necessary for the white-box approach.

For the spherical coverage test cases or the beam peak searches, the extensive black&white-box approach is further outlined in Figure 5.1.3-9. On the other hand, the black-box approach is outlined in Figure 5.1.3-4 while the white-box approach is outlined in Figure 5.1.3-6.

Figure 5.1.3-8: Illustration of black-box approach (left), black&white-box approach (centre), and the white-box approach (right) for the low-UL power test case.

Figure 5.1.3-9: Illustration of beam peak search or beam peak search of sample DUT utilizing extensive black&white-box approach

For white box testing, the minimum radius of the NF probe antenna from the centre of the quiet zone generally must exceed the maximum diameter of the device, as illustrated in Figure 5.1.3-10, to prevent interference of the near field scanning probe with the DUT. While this requirement of the NF range length having to exceed the maximum diameter of the DUT is generally applicable to TRP where the NF Probe antenna needs to perform a full 3D scan around the DUT, this could very well be applicable to single-directional measurements as well, as illustrated in Figure 5.1.3-10 using a PC1 CPE as an example. Similar restrictions apply when testing using ETC enclosures surrounding the DUT.

Figure 5.1.3-10: Illustration of min. Range length of NF Systems when applying white box testing

Figure 5.1.3-11: Illustration of min. Range length for NF Systems using PC1 CPE as example.

The corresponding FF and NF min. range lengths are tabulated for selected FR2 frequencies in Table 5.1.3-3 for PC3 devices with fixed D=5cm.

Table 5.1.3-3: Minimum FF and NF Range Lengths for black box and white box conditions for PC3 devices

f [GHz]

Antenna Config. 1 and 2
– BLACK BOX –
(PC3 Devices: D=5cm)

Antenna Config. 1 and 2
– WHITE BOX –
(PC3 Devices: D=5cm)

Min. FF Range Length [m]

Min. NF Range Length
[m]

Min. FF Range Length
[m]

Min. NF Range Length
[m]

24.25

0.53

0.19

0.40

0.28

30

0.63

0.19

0.50

0.28

40

0.79

0.21

0.67

0.28

43.5

0.85

0.21

0.73

0.28

52.6

1.00

0.22

0.88

0.28

Table 5.1.3-4 summarizes the path loss comparison between “white box” and “black box” configuration across IFF/DFF and NF system types.

Table 5.1.3-4: Path loss comparison between “white box” and “black box” configuration

f (GHz)

Antenna Config. 1, 2, and 3
– BLACK BOX –

(PC3 Devices: D=5cm)

Antenna Config. 1 and 2
– WHITE BOX –
(PC3 Devices: D=5cm)

IFF/DFF

NF

DFF

NF

Path Loss with 1m range length

Path Loss with 0.22m range length

Path Loss with 0.88m range length

Path Loss with 0.28m range length

24.25

60.16

46.86

59.01

48.93

30

62.01

48.71

60.85

50.78

40

64.51

51.21

63.35

53.28

43.5

65.24

51.94

64.08

54.00

52.6

66.89

53.59

65.73

55.65

Based on the analysis shown in Table 5.1.3-4, it can be concluded that a “white box” is not deemed a feasible enhancement of the methodology.

Additionally, since the beam peak searches and the spherical coverage test cases are not part of the low UL/high DL power test cases and given the complexity of the vendor declaration of the extensive black&white-box approach, it can be concluded that the extensive black&white-box approach is not deemed a feasible enhancement of the methodology.