Progress In Electromagnetics Research, Vol.

139, 445–478, 2013

EXPOSURE OPTIMIZATION IN INDOOR WIRELESS

NETWORKS BY HEURISTIC NETWORK PLANNING

David Plets* , Wout Joseph, Kris Vanhecke, and Luc Martens

Department of Information Technology, WiCa-Ghent Univer-

sity/iMinds, Gaston Crommenlaan 8, B-9050 Ghent, Belgium

Abstract—Due to the increased use of indoor wireless networks

and the concern about human exposure to radio-frequency sources,
exposure awareness has increased during recent years. However,
current-day network planners rarely take into account electric-field
strengths when designing networks. Therefore, in this paper,
a heuristic indoor network planner for exposure calculation and
optimization of wireless networks is developed, jointly optimizing
coverage and exposure, for homogeneous or heterogeneous networks.
The implemented exposure models are validated by simulations and
measurements. As a first novel optimization feature, networks are
designed that do not exceed a user-defined electric-field strength
value in the building. The influence of the maximally allowed field
strength, based on norms in different countries, and the assumed
minimal separation between the access point and the human are
investigated for a typical office building. As a second feature, a novel
heuristic exposure minimization algorithm is presented and applied to
a wireless homogeneous WiFi and a heterogeneous WiFi-LTE femtocell
network, using a new metric that is simple but accurate. Field
strength reductions of a factor 3 to 6 compared to traditional network
deployments are achieved and a more homogeneous distribution of
the observed field values on the building floor is obtained. Also,
the influence of the throughput requirement on the field strength
distribution on the building floor is assessed. Moreover, it is shown
that exposure minimization is more effective for high than for low
throughput requirements and that high field values are more reduced
than low field values.

Received 30 January 2013, Accepted 26 March 2013, Scheduled 5 May 2013

* Corresponding author: David Plets (david.plets@intec.ugent.be).
446 Plets et al.

1. INTRODUCTION

Due to the increased popularity of indoor wireless networks, many

software tools have been developed for the prediction of the received
signal quality and the network performance [1–7]. These tools
are either based on ray models, numerical solver models, heuristic
predictions, or statistical (site-specific) models. In [8], the authors
developed a heuristic indoor propagation prediction tool, which is able
to design and optimize a WiFi network for a given coverage requirement
with a minimal number of access points (APs).
In the meanwhile, both the trend towards green networking [9, 10]
as well as the enormous increase of wireless communication due to the
increasing need for coverage and high data rates, make it necessary
to investigate and characterize the exposure of the general public to
electromagnetic fields at RF (radio-frequency) frequencies used for
wireless telecommunication. Measurements and studies have indicated
that indoor exposure cannot be neglected [11]. International safety
guidelines such as [12] and ICNIRP (International Commission on
Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection) [13] have been developed and
authorities and countries have implemented laws and norms to limit
human exposure. This indicates the need for an accurate exposure
characterization and exposure-aware network planning. Consequently,
research has recently been started on green network deployments.
Besides attempts to limit energy consumption in wireless (access)
networks [10, 14], the concerns about a possible harmful impact of
human exposure to RF sources have led to a situation where network
planners (out of necessity) have to take the field strength of the incident
waves into account.
However, most research still focuses on the mere characterization
of RF exposure in different environments and/or for different
technologies [15–19], or for MIMO [20] networks and terminals, without
focusing on an actual reduction or minimization of the exposure. Other
studies try to predict or simulate the ‘impact’ of a deployment. E.g.,
in [21], a metric is proposed to assess the environmental impact of
network deployments. The metric focuses on outdoor environments
and after some preprocessing of different configurations, the impact
of a particular deployment can be assessed. In the study, however,
no (automatic) network planning is performed and configurations are
assessed based on their environmental impact, not on their coverage.
In [22], base-station networks are optimized based on a metric which
not only takes into account coverage, traffic, and economic efficiency,
but also the environmental impact of the electromagnetic field. The
optimization is based on a genetic algorithm, just like in [23], where
Progress In Electromagnetics Research, Vol. 139, 2013 447

automatic green (i.e., low energy consumption, low carbon emissions,

low exposure) network planning is performed. Both papers, however,
are aimed at outdoor environments, often for which simple propagation
models are used, permitting the usage of genetic algorithms, due to the
short calculation time of a single iteration.
In this paper, an advanced exposure calculation model and
two automatic indoor exposure optimization algorithms for network
planning are presented that jointly optimize exposure and coverage.
The model for the electric-field strength distribution is constructed
and validated with simulations and measurements for a WiFi access
point and an Long-Term Evolution (LTE) femtocell. The paper
describes two optimization algorithms, both of which are very useful in
everyday network planning. Firstly, an exposure limitation algorithm
is described. It designs a network that provides a user-defined
coverage with the lowest possible amount of access points, while
at the same ensuring that a user-defined exposure threshold is not
exceeded at any location on the entire building floor. The influence
on the network layout of the maximally allowed field strength and
of the assumed minimal separation between the AP and the human
are assessed for a typical office building and for exposure limits
(or recommendations) in different regions in the world. To the
authors’ knowledge, similar algorithms have not been presented yet.
Secondly, an exposure minimization algorithm is described, which
designs a network which provides a user-defined coverage, with the
lowest possible resulting exposure (within reasonable transmit power
restrictions). Exposure is minimized in an office building for a
homogeneous WiFi (Wireless Fidelity) network and, in the light of
the emergence of new wireless technologies such as LTE [11, 19], also
for a heterogeneous WiFi-LTE network. A homogeneous network
is a single-technology network, i.e., only transmitters of one single
technology are present (e.g., WiFi access points). Heterogeneous
networks on the contrary, are cooperative networks allowing receivers
to connect to and perform handovers between transmitters from
different technologies, e.g., a 4G phone connecting to WiFi access
points or LTE femtocells. Exposure distributions are compared
for an exposure-optimized network design and a traditional network
design (with maximal-power indoor transmitters), and for different
throughputs in the building. Also, the exposure reduction after
optimization is determined. Due to the heuristic approach, the
algorithm is much faster than classical genetic algorithms, which
require a lot of ‘unintelligent’ iterations before converging to an
acceptable solution.
The use of femtocells for exposure reduction has already been
448 Plets et al.

investigated in [19]. The influence of using an Universal Mobile

Telecommunications System (UMTS) femtocell on the received and
transmitted power levels of a mobile device is assessed, but no
actual network optimization is performed. Until now, indoor network
planning rarely took into account, let alone optimized exposure.
This paper is one of the first to describe and apply automatic
planning algorithms for exposure-optimized indoor networks, using
an advanced prediction model that has been extensively validated by
actual measurements. Moreover, this paper does not only investigate
homogeneous wireless networks, but also the emerging heterogeneous
networks, for which exposure minimization has not been investigated
yet.
In Section 2 the network planner and its configuration is presented
and a definition of homogeneous and heterogeneous networks is
provided. In Section 3, the exposure model is constructed and
validated. Section 4 discusses the exposure algorithm, followed by an
analysis of the application of exposure limitation algorithm in Section 5
and the exposure minimization algorithm in Section 6. Section 7
investigates the validity of the assumption that the field strength is
mainly determined by the dominant transmitter and in Section 8, the
conclusions of this research are presented.

2. NETWORK PLANNER AND DEFINITIONS

2.1. Network Planner

The WiCa Heuristic Indoor Propagation Prediction (WHIPP)
algorithm is heuristic planning algorithm, developed and validated
for the prediction of path loss in indoor environments [8]. It takes
into account the effect of the environment on the wireless propagation
channel and has been developed for the prediction of the path loss
on a grid over an entire building floor or at specific locations. The
granularity of the prediction is determined by the density of the grid
points on the building floor. The algorithm bases its calculations on the
determination of the dominant path between transmitter and receiver,
i.e., the path along which the signal encounters the lowest obstruction.
This approach is justified by the fact that more than 95% of the energy
received is contained in only 2 or 3 paths [3]. The dominant path
is determined with a multidimensional optimization algorithm that
searches the lowest total path loss, consisting of a distance loss (taking
into account the length of the propagation path), a cumulated wall
loss (taking into account the walls penetrated along the propagation
path), and an interaction loss (taking into account the propagation
direction changes of the path, e.g., around corners). The model has
Progress In Electromagnetics Research, Vol. 139, 2013 449

been constructed for the 2.4–2.6 GHz band and its performance has
been validated with a large set of measurements in various buildings [8].
In contrary to many existing tools no tuning of the tool’s parameters
is performed for the validation. Excellent correspondence between
measurements and predictions is obtained, even for other buildings
and floors [8]. As the distance loss contribution in the tool is
based on the free-space loss model for every environment, the tool
is generally applicable, while other tools are often too dependent of
the environment upon which the used propagation model is based.

2.1.1. Network Planner Settings

In the following, we will list the network planner settings that will be
used for the design of exposure-optimized networks.
Two receivers will be considered: a WiFi receiver (e.g., a laptop
with a WiFi receiver chipset) and an LTE receiver (e.g., a 4G mobile
phone). Table 1 lists the assumed receiver sensitivities of the WiFi
chipset (2.4 GHz band), a reference receiver for 802.11 g. The table
shows the required received power PRx [dBm] in order to achieve
a certain physical-layer (PHY) throughput. The assumed receiver
antenna gain is 0 dB. For the LTE receiver chipset (2.6 GHz band),
a bandwidth of 20 MHz, a DL : UL (downlink : uplink) ratio of
3 : 1 (i.e., three quarters of the available bandwidth is available for
downstream traffic), a noise figure of 8 dB, and SNR (signal-to-noise-
ratio) values from [24] are assumed, yielding the receiver sensitivities
listed in Table 1, column ‘LTE’.
For the actual network planning calculations, the 90% shadowing
margin, the 95% fade margin, and the interference margin are chosen as
7 dB, 5 dB, and 0 dB, respectively [8]. The prediction model presented
in [8] is developed for 2.4 and 2.6 GHz. Wall penetration losses
and interaction losses [8] are assumed to be the same due to the
small frequency difference (2.6 GHz vs. 2.4 GHz), but the distance loss
is adapted by taking into account the frequency dependence of the
distance loss model [8].

2.2. Definition of Homogeneous and Heterogeneous

Networks
In this paper, planning for exposure-optimized networks will be
performed for both a homogeneous WiFi network and a heterogeneous
WiFi-LTE network.
A homogeneous network is a single-technology network, i.e.,
the considered network only consists of transmitters of one single
technology. For the homogeneous scenarios considered here, we will
450 Plets et al.

Table 1. Sensitivities of the WiFi and LTE receivers (20 MHz channel)
and margin settings used in the network planner.
Receiver sensitivities
WiFi 802.11 g LTE (20 MHz channel)
PRx PHY throughput PRx PHY throughput
[dBm] [Mbps] [dBm] [Mbps]
−88 6 −92.6 8.5
−87 9 −88.1 12.7
−84 12 −80.6 16.9
−82 18 −77.1 25.3
−79 24 −72.1 33.8
−75 36 −68.1 40.6
−68 48 −61.7 50.7
−68 54
Margin settings
Shadowing margin 7 dB
Fade margin 5 dB
Interference margin 0 dB

also assume that there are no transmitters using other technologies

present in the building. The homogeneous network we will investigate
is a network with only 2.4 GHz WiFi access points, in which a WiFi
receiver is located (e.g., a laptop or a mobile phone). Although a
background field level will be present due to other technologies (e.g.,
FM (Frequency Modulation) radio), this will not influence the actual
optimization later in this paper. If the field level is known though, it
can easily be taken into account in the actual exposure characterization
within the building.
A heterogeneous network is a cooperative network formed by a
collaboration of networks that use different technologies. It allows
receivers to connect to and perform handovers between transmitters
from different technologies. Here, a heterogeneous network with
2.4 GHz WiFi access points and 2.6 GHz LTE femtocells will be
investigated. As receiver device, we use a 4G mobile phone with
both a WiFi and an LTE receiver chipset, allowing it to connect to
both transmitters types. The same WiFi receiver chipset as for the
homogenenous network is assumed (see Table 1, column ‘WiFi’). The
LTE receiver chipset is described in Section 2.1.1 and Table 1, column
Progress In Electromagnetics Research, Vol. 139, 2013 451

‘LTE’. In the remainder of the paper, we will again only take into
account the fields caused by the WiFi and LTE transmitters.

3. EXPOSURE MODEL

3.1. Construction of the Exposure Model

In this section, the model to predict the electric-field strength caused
by a transmitter will be derived. In [25], a far-field conversion formula
between path loss and electric-field strength is presented.
PL [dB] = 139 − EERP=1 kW [dBµV/m] + 20 · log10 (f ) [MHz], (1)
with PL [dB] the path loss between the transmitter and a receiver at
a certain location, EERP=1 kW [dBµV/m] the received field strength
for an ERP (Effective Radiated Power) of 1 kW, and f [MHz] the
frequency.
Using Equation (1) and the identity
p
E [V/m] = EERP=1 kW [V/m] · ERP [kW], (2)
and knowing that for dipoles ERP [dBm] = EIRP [dBm] − 2.15, we
obtain the following formula for the electric-field strength E [V/m] at
a certain location, as a function of the EIRP, the path loss, and the
frequency:
EIRP [dBm]−43.15+20·log10 (f ) [MHz]−PL [dB]
E [V/m] = 10 20 , (3)
For the path loss PL of Equation (3), the extensively validated
WHIPP model of [8] is used (see also Section 2.1). The assumed duty
cycle is 100% (worst-case scenario).

3.2. Validation of the Exposure Model

The electric-field model of Equation (3), with the PL calculated
according to the WHIPP model, has also been validated in the
proximity of a WiFi access point and an LTE femtocell, with
simulations and measurements.
For the validation simulations at the two frequencies (2.4 and
2.6 GHz), the antenna of the access point is modeled as a half-
wavelength dipole. The maximum grid step does not exceed 0.07 times
the wavelength in free space. Using FDTD (Finite-Difference Time-
Domain) calculations, the simulation domain is finite in extent and
boundary conditions are applied. Uni-axial perfectly matched layers
(UPML) are applied to the boundaries to avoid reflections back into
the simulation domain. The number of layers is automatically set by
452 Plets et al.

the FDTD solver to obtain a selected efficiency of 99.9%. Electric-

field strength simulations are executed for a dipole EIRP (Equivalent
Isotropically Radiated Power) of 20 dBm and at distances between 3.5
and 50 cm from the dipole.
The validation measurements for a WiFi DLink access point have
been performed using the methodology described in [26]. Firstly,
the active WLAN channels are determined by means of a WLAN-
packet analyzer. Secondly, the duty cycle of these active channels
is determined, and thirdly, max-hold measurements of the electric-
field of the different WLAN channels are executed with a spectrum
analyzer and a calibrated tri-axial measurement probe. Finally, the
total average electric field is calculated by multiplying the square root
of the appropriate duty cycle with the recorded max-hold value. The
measurements are executed in the vicinity of a WiFi DLink DI-624
AirPlusXtremeG AP with an EIRP of 20 dBm and a duty cycle of
100%.
Figure 1(a) compares the simulated (half-wavelength dipole at
2400 MHz) and measured electric-field strength with the field strengths
prediction by the WHIPP model (see Equation (3)), as a function
of the separation d from the dipole. The figure shows that the
electric-field strength as predicted by the WHIPP model is a very
good approximation for both the measured and simulated near-

10
3
WHIPP model @ 2400 MHz 103 WHIPP model @ 2600 MHz
WiFi access point simulations LTE femtocell simulations
WiFi DLink access point measurements
2
10
10 2
E [V/m]
E [V/m]

1
10

101
0
10

-1
10 100
-2 -1 0 1 -2 -1 0
10 10 10 10 10 10 10
d [m] d [m]
(a) (b)

Figure 1. (a) Measured electric-field strength in the vicinity of a

DLink DI-624 AP with an EIRP of 20 dBm, electric-field strength in
the vicinity of a dipole at 2400 MHz with an EIRP of 20 dBm according
to FDTD simulations, and WHIPP model prediction. (b) Electric-field
strength in the vicinity of a dipole at 2600 MHz with an EIRP of 2 dBm
according to FDTD simulations, and WHIPP model prediction.
Progress In Electromagnetics Research, Vol. 139, 2013 453

field electric-field strength. Average deviations of 0.07 V/m (with a

standard deviation of 0.08 V/m) are obtained for the WiFi access point
simulations for distances larger than 10 cm. The measurements deviate
from the model 0.08 V/m on average (0.43 V/m in absolute deviations)
with a standard deviation of 0.58 V/m. The higher measured
deviations at larger separations may be due to wall reflections.
Figure 1(b) compares the simulated (half-wavelength dipole at
2600 MHz) with the field strengths prediction by the WHIPP model
(see Equation (3)), as a function of the separation d from the dipole.
The figure shows that again, the electric-field strength as predicted
by the WHIPP model is a very good approximation for the simulated
near-field electric-field strength. Average deviations of 0.06 V/m (with
a standard deviation of 0.06 V/m) are obtained for distances larger
than 10 cm.

3.3. Exposure Calculation for Multiple Sources

The previous model is directly applicable for networks with one
transmitting source. However, in most cases, wireless networks consist
of multiple transmitting sources and exposure calculation should take
into account the fields from all sources. To calculate the electric-
field strength at a certain location, we will only consider the electric-
field strength Edom caused by the most dominant source (i.e., the
source causing the highest electric-field value at that location), in
order to speed up the calculations. However, in Section 7, we will
also investigate the impact of this simplification by comparing with an
expression Etotal that takes into account all contributing sources at a
certain location.
v
uN
uX
Etotal=t E2,
i (4)
i=1

where N is the total number of different sources on the building floor.

Ei is the electric-field strength caused by transmitting source i. The
field vectors caused by the different sources are thus assumed to have
no phase correlation.

4. EXPOSURE OPTIMIZATION ALGORITHMS

In this section, the exposure limitation algorithm and the exposure

minimization algorithm will be presented. The exposure limitation
algorithm creates a network that provides a certain requested coverage
with a minimal number access points, while ensuring that a self-chosen
454 Plets et al.

electric-field strength limit (e.g., 3 V/m) will nowhere be exceeded

in the whole building, provided you keep a certain (self-chosen)
distance from the transmitter (e.g., 50 cm). The exposure minimization
algorithm will also provide the requested coverage in the building, but
in such a way that the electric-field strength over the entire building
floor is minimized. The aim of the algorithm is to minimize a metric
that reflects ‘the degree of human exposure’ to RF sources on the entire
building floor. The metric will be described in Section 4.2.1. For the
calculation of the cumulative distribution function (cdf) of all electric-
field strengths throughout the building, we will exclude the locations
that are within 30 cm from the transmitters, because we can assume
that people will not remain within a 30-cm range of the transmitter.

4.1. Exposure Limitation Algorithm

In this section, we will design a network that provides a certain required
throughput in the different rooms of the building, but where the
electric-field strength at a given minimal distance from the transmitter
remains below a given threshold.
Figure 2 shows a flow graph summarizing the exposure limitation
algorithm. There are three inputs for the algorithm: the assumed
minimal separation ds [m] of the human from the transmitters that will
be installed, the maximally allowed electric-field strength Eds max [V/m]
at a separation equal to ds from the transmitter, and the ground plan of
the building floor that is to be covered, with indication of the coverage
requirement for each of the rooms. After using the WHIPP path loss
calculator to determine the path loss PLds [dB] at a distance equal to
ds , and combining Eqs. (1) and (2), an expression for the corresponding
maximally allowed ERP ERPmax [kW] of the transmitters is obtained:
PLds [dB]−19−20·log10 (f ) [MHz]
max 2
ERPmax [kW] = (Eds ) [V/m] · 10 10 . (5)
After some simplifications, and given that for dipoles ERP [dBm] =
EIRP [dBm] − 2.15, we obtain the following formula for the maximally
allowed EIRPmax [dBm]:
µ max ¶
Eds [V/m]
EIRPmax [dBm] = 43.15 + 20 · log10 + PLds [dB], (6)
f [MHz]
where EIRPmax is limited to 20 dBm, the maximally allowed transmit
power for WiFi in Europe in the 2.4 GHz band [27]. For the
exposure calculations later in this paper, it will be assumed that
this limit also applies to non-European countries. Fig. 1 shows
that the WHIPP model is a good choice for the parameter PLds at
small transmitter-receiver separations. After determining EIRPmax ,
Progress In Electromagnetics Research, Vol. 139, 2013 455

the WHIPP optimization module [8] delivers the ground plan with
the transmitter locations (see Fig. 2).
Many countries have different limitations or guidelines for electric-
field strengths: e.g., 6 V/m in Italy, 12 V/m in China, . . . (for
frequencies between 30 and 3000 MHz). Eq. (6) allows quickly
determining the transmit power limit to meet these restrictions. Once
EIRPmax is known, the network planning algorithm described in [8] is
used to design a network which satisfies both coverage and exposure
requirements. The methodology creates a network that meets the
different coverage requirements in the rooms on the building and where
the observed electric-field strength E does not exceed the threshold
value Edsmax that was set by the user, in any of the locations on the
building floor. The building floor is covered with the least number of
access points possible, by maximizing the AP power within the imposed
exposure limitations.

Figure 2. Flow graph of exposure limitation algorithm.

4.2. Exposure Minimization Algorithm

In this section, we will again design a network that provides a certain
required throughput in the different rooms of the building, but where
the global exposure will at the same time be minimal. To assess the
456 Plets et al.

global exposure, an optimization metric reflecting the degree of human

exposure on the building floor is needed.

4.2.1. Optimization Metric

There exist different metrics to assess, limit, or minimize the exposure
on a building floor, e.g., [21, 23]. In this paper, we will use EM , the
average of the median electric-field strength E50 in the entire building,
and the 95%-percentile value E95 of the field strengths in the building.

 with user-defined coverage
w1 · E50 + w2 · E95  requirement for each location
EM = (7)
w1 + w2  according to 90% shadowing

margin and 95% fading margin
with w1 and w2 weighting factors for the 50%-percentile value E50 and
the 95%-percentile E95 respectively. We choose to include E50 into the
metric to account for the median exposure on the building floor, and
also E95 , to account for the maximal exposure values. Here, we will
assume an equal impact of E50 and E95 on the metric and set both w1
and w2 at a value of 0.5. When evaluating and optimizing the different
networks for a low exposure, the given coverage requirement always has
to be met, using the 90% shadowing margin and 95% fading margin.
The WHIPP tool allows choosing a separate coverage requirement for
each room [8].
In the future, more complex metrics can be investigated. Each
location on the building floor could be attributed a weight that
corresponds to the likeliness that people are present at that location
(number of people per m2 per hour). This way, high field values could
be avoided in rooms where people are likely to be present for a longer
time.
Other metrics have been proposed in literature. In [21], an
Electromagnetic Environmental Impact Factor (EEIF) has been
defined, a scale from 0 to 100 to characterize the electromagnetic
pollution level in an outdoor urban area. However, this approach is
not applied to indoor environments and does not take into account
coverage requirements. Moreover, it requires the definition of the
best-case and worst-case reference scenarios corresponding with 0 and
with 100 on the scale respectively. The EEIF takes into account the
average electric-field value and the variance of the values. This is
also the case for our metric, which gives preference to configurations
with a low median field strength (use of E50 ) and a low variance (use
of E95 ). In the metric of [23], only the median field strength over
the investigated area is considered, which does not penalize high field
strength fluctuations. In [22], a (green) optimization metric is used,
Progress In Electromagnetics Research, Vol. 139, 2013 457

but it is aimed at (outdoor) cellular base station networks: besides

coverage and electromagnetic field strength, also traffic aspects and
economic efficiency are taken into account.

4.2.2. Algorithm
In this section, an algorithm is presented to minimize the global
exposure metric EM (average of median and 95%-percentile electric-
field value, see Section 4.2.1) on a building floor. Lower values of EM
will lead to a larger number of access points, but with lower transmit
power. The exposure minimization algorithm consists of four phases,
displayed in the flow graph of Fig. 3.
(1) In the first phase, a network containing low-power access points
with an EIRP of 1 dBm, is created. This is done according to the
optimization algorithm presented in [8, 28]. This yields a network
that covers the building floor according to the user’s throughput
requirements and with the given AP transmit power of 1 dBm
(see Fig. 3). This low transmit power (1 dBm) is chosen because
a network with many low-power transmitters is preferred over a
network with few high-power transmitters (that still provides the
same coverage though), due to the better exposure characteristics
of the former network.
(2) In a second phase, it is investigated if access points within 125%
of their line-of-sight range (circle around access point) from each
other, can be merged into one new access point (with a possibly
higher transmit power), yielding a new network with a lower EM
value. Practical experience has learned that the value of 125%
is high enough to not exclude possibly mergeable access points,
but not too high to needlessly investigate all access pairs. The
merging of two access points is only executed if the value for the
global exposure metric EM is lower for the new network. Merging
of an access point pair consists of removing the two access points
of the pair and adding one new access point at an optimal location
(= with a minimal EIRP). The access point pairs with the lowest
separation between each other are first investigated, because they
have the greatest probability of being merged. When merging,
the optimal location of the new access point is chosen as follows.
After removing the access point pair, it is calculated which receiver
points do not receive a sufficient power from the remaining access
points anymore: these receiver points will not obtain the requested
coverage anymore and they are collected in a set L. We now
want to cover all these points by placing a new transmitter with
a transmit power that is as low as possible (for the purpose of a
458 Plets et al.

Figure 3. Flow graph of exposure minimization algorithm with

indication of the four optimization phases.

low exposure). To find the location (optimal merge location) for

this access point with a minimal power, we execute the following
process, consisting of roughly three steps. Firstly, for each possible
access point location, the algorithm first determines all path losses
between that location and the locations of the other receiver points
of L. Secondly, the maximum value of these path losses is stored
for each possible access point location. Thirdly, the access point
(location) that has the lowest stored maximum path loss value will
now be able to cover L with the lowest possible power, and hence,
Progress In Electromagnetics Research, Vol. 139, 2013 459

also the lowest exposure. Phase 2 is illustrated in Fig. 3, without

going into detail on the three steps of the process of selecting the
optimal merge location.
(3) In a third phase, it is checked if an access point can be removed
by increasing the transmit powers of surrounding access points.
The access points serving the least amount of grid points are
first investigated, because these have the largest chance to
be ‘redundant’ when small power increases are applied to the
surrounding access points. The procedure of increasing the
transmit powers of surrounding access points in an optimal way
consists of roughly three steps and is executed as follows. Firstly,
the grid points that lose coverage by removing the access point
are determined. A grid point loses coverage if its received power
becomes too low to provide the required throughput in that room.
After removal of the access point, each of these grid points will
thus have a ‘received-power deficit’ of a few dB, i.e., the best
serving remaining transmitter will provide the grid point with a
received power that is a few dB too low to obtain the required
coverage. Secondly, the maximum value of the deficits over all grid
points without coverage determines the necessary power increase
of a first access point in the vicinity of the grid points that have
lost coverage. After increasing the power of this access point,
the size of the set of grid points that have lost coverage will
decrease, thanks to some grid points ‘regaining’ coverage. It is
assumed that a receiver always connects to the one access point
that provides it with the highest received power. Thirdly, as long
as this set is not empty, the transmit power of other surrounding
access points is increased. Due to the nature of the algorithm,
the consecutive power increases will decrease. An access point
of which the power has already been increased, is excluded from
further power increase operations, because for a low exposure, it
is better to have a homogeneous distribution of (low) transmit
powers than to have several high and several low transmit powers.
This way, the coverage gaps are filled with the lowest possible
exposure increase. Phase 3 is illustrated in Fig. 3, without going
into detail on the three steps of the (optimal) way of selecting the
access points for which the power is increased.
(4) In the fourth phase (see Fig. 3), it is investigated if the transmit
power of the individual access points can be lowered without losing
coverage. Access points with the highest transmit power are first
investigated, because with respect to the global exposure value, it
is more advantageous to lower these first. The algorithm allows
setting a lower limit for the transmit power (e.g., 1 dBm) to satisfy
460 Plets et al.

the access point configuration settings that are possible.

The resulting network is a network that provides the requested
coverage with the lowest human exposure.

5. APPLICATION OF EXPOSURE LIMITATION

ALGORITHM

In this section, the exposure limitation algorithm described in

Section 4.1 will be applied to an actual building. Also, the influence
of the imposed exposure restrictions on the network layout will be
assessed.

5.1. Configuration
When evaluating and optimizing wireless networks for a low exposure,
a given coverage requirement always has to be met. Fig. 4 shows
the ground plan of the third floor (90 m × 17 m) of an office building
in Ghent, Belgium, for which we will intend to limit the human
exposure. The shaded rooms indicate the rooms and locations where
no coverage is required; these are kitchens, toilets, storerooms, elevator
shafts, . . . In the other rooms, the user can define a certain required
throughput (e.g., 54 Mbps, 18 Mbps, . . . ), which will be achieved
during 95% of the time and at 90% of the locations, according to
the margins defined in Table 1. For this specific case, the coverage
requirement in the building will be ‘HD video’ streaming access
(54 Mbps) throughout the entire building, except in the shaded rooms
(see Section 4.2.1). Furthermore, only WiFi access points will be placed
to form a homogeneous network. They are placed at a height of 200 cm

Figure 4. Ground plan of the building that is optimized for a maximal

electric field of 5 V/m at a separation of 10 cm from the AP and
indication of electric-field strength. The APs are located at the center
of the lighter zones. The shaded area indicates where no wireless
coverage is required.
Progress In Electromagnetics Research, Vol. 139, 2013 461

above ground level and the receiver is assumed at a height of 100 cm

above ground level.

5.2. Exposure Limitation for a Homogeneous WiFi Network

for Different Exposure Restrictions
In this section, the influence of the exposure restrictions (assumed
ds at a separation
minimal separation ds and maximal field-strength Emax
ds ) on the number of access points needed to cover the building floor
is investigated. Fig. 5 shows the number of APs needed to provide the
required coverage on the building floor, as a function of the maximal
max for different minimal separations d from the AP, ranging
limit Eds s
from 10 cm to 3 m. Also, the field exposure limits of some countries
are indicated. These limits are listed in Table 2.

Table 2. Number of APs needed to cover the building floor depicted

in Fig. 4, for exposure limits in different countries.
Separation ds between
Number of required access points
Rx and AP [cm]
Limit
Region 10 30 50 100 300
[V/m]
Salzburg 0.02 > 75 > 75 > 75 > 75 > 75
1
Wallonia 3 16 5 4 3 3
Flanders1 4.48 11 4 3 3 3
Italy 6 6 3 3 3 3
China 12 4 3 3 3 3
(ICNIRP [29]) 61 3 3 3 3 3
1
: Wallonia and flanders are regions in Belgium.

Figure 5 shows that when, at a fixed separation from the AP, the
maximally allowed exposure limit Emax ds increases, a higher EIRP is
allowed for the APs, leading to a lower total number of APs needed
to cover the building floor. E.g., for a separation of 10 cm, a network
with 16 access points is required according to the limit of 3 V/m in the
Belgian region of Wallonia, while 4 access points suffice according to
the Chinese limit of 12 V/m. At high field strength limits Emax ds , the

number of APs becomes constant (3 access points required for Emax ds

values of 17 V/m or higher for all investigated separations), since the
EIRP at 2.4 GHz is limited at 20 dBm (in Europe). Alternatively, if the
assumed minimal separation from an AP decreases (for a fixed value
ds ), the maximally allowed EIRP decreases and more APs are
of Emax
462 Plets et al.

Figure 5. Number of APs needed to provide the required coverage

on the building floor, as a function of the maximal limit Emax for
different minimal separations from the AP, and indication of limits
or recommendations in different regions (WAL = Wallonia, FLA =
Flanders; both are Belgian regions).

needed to cover the building floor. E.g., for Flanders, the number of
required access points increases from 3 to 11 if the assumed minimal
separation from the access point decreases from 1 m to 10 cm.
As an example of the exposure limitation (and calculation)
algorithm, Fig. 4 shows the resulting exposure map for the proposed
configuration for a maximal electric field Edsmax of 5 V/m at a separation
ds of 10 cm from the AP. This is indicated as one point (‘Fig. 4’) in
Fig. 5. This means that it is assumed that the EIRP of the access
points will be chosen in such a way that, as long as the human does
not approach the access point closer than 10 cm (= separation ds ), the
experienced field strength will not exceed 5 V/m (= Eds max ). For this
example configuration, 10 access points (with an EIRP of 9 dBm) are
needed. The electric-field strength for this configuration is visualized
in Fig. 4 using a colour code. The APs are not indicated in the figure,
but it is clear that their locations correspond to the center of the lighter
zones where the exposure is the highest. Obviously, the electric-field
strength decreases when moving away from the APs. The optimized
low-exposure network for the ground plan of Fig. 4 corresponds with
10 cm = 5 V/m and is also indicated in Fig. 5.
Emax
Progress In Electromagnetics Research, Vol. 139, 2013 463

Table 2 shows the number of APs needed to cover the building

floor depicted in Fig. 4 (see Section 5.1) for an assumption of a maximal
EIRP of 20 dBm, for different AP-to-human separations and for some
specific exposure limits (or recommendations) in different countries.
The different exposure limits cause large differences in the required
number of APs (and their maximal EIRP): for a separation ds of
10 cm, the number of required access points varies from 3 (ICNIRP)
to 16 (Wallonia). It is clear that for very restrictive limits (low Emax
values), network planning becomes extremely difficult (e.g., Salzburg,
where more than 75 access points would be needed if this guideline had
to be followed). When the assumed ‘separations’ increase, the number
of required access points decreases of course.

6. APPLICATION OF EXPOSURE MINIMIZATION

ALGORITHM

Three scenarios will be considered for the exposure minimization. In

a first scenario, we will illustrate the four optimization phases (see
Section 4.2) for a homogeneous WiFi network with a throughput of
54 Mbps for one user in the service area of each access point. In
a second scenario, the influence of the required throughput on the
obtained field strength distribution will be assessed for homogeneous
WiFi networks. Finally, in the third scenario, a heterogeneous WiFi-
LTE network will be optimized with respect to exposure.

6.1. Configuration and Scenarios

Human exposure will be minimized for the same office building as
before (see Fig. 4). Three different scenarios will be investigated for this
building floor. However, the scenarios have in common that coverage
will have to be provided throughout the entire building, except in the
shaded rooms (see Section 4.2.1). Access points are always placed at
a height of 200 cm above ground level and the receiver is assumed at
a height of 100 cm above ground level. The minimization is performed
using the metric EM (see Section 4.2.1): the configuration yielding the
lowest possible average of E50 and E95 is targeted and locations within
a horizontal distance of 30 cm from the transmitters are left out of the
electric-field strength distribution calculation. The three investigated
scenarios are the following.
(1) In the first (homogeneous) scenario, only WiFi access points are
placed over the entire building floor in order to provide coverage
for HD video streaming (54 Mbps), based on the specifications
464 Plets et al.

of a WiFi 802.11 g reference receiver (see Table 1). The four

optimization phases defined in Section 4.2 will be discussed.
(2) In the second (homogeneous) scenario, a similar approach as in
the first scenario is followed. However, we will now assess the
influence of the required throughput (varying from 6 to 54 Mbps)
on the number of required access points and the distribution of
the electric-field strength. Also, the exposure improvement when
switching from a traditional network deployment (with high-power
transmitters) to an exposure-optimized network deployment is
investigated. With ‘traditional’ network design, we mean a design
that provides network coverage with as few access points as
possible. Obviously, the access points will then transmit at the
maximally allowed power. Coverage calculations are again based
on the specifications of the WiFi 802.11g reference receiver (see
Table 1).
(3) In the third (heterogeneous) scenario, one LTE femtocell at
2600 MHz is present in the building, with an EIRP of 10 dBm, a
bandwidth of 20 MHz and a 3 : 1 downlink-uplink ratio. Previous
research has indicated that femtocell downlink traffic may cause
significant exposure values. In this scenario, the femtocell EIRP
cannot be decreased and is assumed to be fixed at 10 dBm. The
femtocell has a fixed location and WiFi access points are added
to provide a coverage of 18 Mbps (vs. 54 Mbps in scenario 1). We
choose a lower throughput (18 Mbps) than in scenario 1 (54 Mbps),
because usually, lower throughputs will be expected from LTE
femtocells. For the heterogeneous scenario, we assume a 4G
receiver (WiFi and LTE) that is able to automatically switch to
the transmitter (access point or femtocell) that provides it with the
best coverage. The four optimization phases defined in Section 4.2
will be discussed.
In the following, these three scenarios will be elaborated on.

6.2. Scenario 1: Exposure Minimization Phases for a

Homogeneous WiFi Network (54 Mbps)
In this section, the four exposure minimization phases described in
Section 4.2 will be applied to a homogeneous WiFi network (see
Section 4.1) for a required throughput of 54 Mbps. Table 3 lists the
results of each of the phases.
In phase 1, the WHIPP optimization module places access points
on the ground plan, with the empty ground plan of the considered
building floor as an input to the algorithm. 23 Access points with an
EIRP of 1 dBm are needed, yielding a median electric-field strength
Progress In Electromagnetics Research, Vol. 139, 2013 465

E50 of 0.053 V/m and a 95%-percentile value E95 of 0.190 V/m. EM

equals 0.122 V/m. Fig. 6 shows the result of phase 1 for the considered
building floor after this first optimization phase, i.e., optimal network
design with only WiFi access points with an EIRP of 1 dBm.

Figure 6. Network layout after first exposure minimization phase.

(AP = dot, EIRP is indicated within dot, circles around APs indicate
mergeable access point pairs).

In phase 2, access point pairs are merged (see Fig. 3, phase 2). The
six access point pairs that are circled in Fig. 6, can be merged with a
resulting lower global exposure EM (see Section 4.2.1). Fig. 7 shows
the resulting network after the second optimization phase (phase 2).
The newly placed access points are circled in Fig. 7 and have EIRPs
between 0 and 3 dBm. Although coverage is now provided with a lower
number of access points (17 (with EIRP between 1 and 3 dBm) instead
of 23 (with EIRP of 1 dBm)), the E50 and E95 values also decrease,
to respective values of 0.049 V/m and 0.174 V/m. EM decreases from
0.122 V/m to 0.112 V/m.

Figure 7. Network layout after merging access point pairs (second

exposure minimization phase) (AP = dot, EIRP is indicated within
dot, circles around APs indicate newly placed access points in phase 2).

In a third phase, it is investigated if access points can be removed

by increasing the transmit power of the surrounding access points in an
optimal way. This would for example be the case if there is one access
point that is more or less circularly surrounded by other access points
that are within a reasonable distance from the center transmitter.
Removing the center access point while increasing each (or some) of
the powers of the surrounding access points with a few dB could then
‘fill’ the coverage gap that arose in the center by removing the (center)
access point. For the building floor under test however, no access
466 Plets et al.

points could be removed, due to the ‘homogeneous’ distribution of the

access points over the building floor. By a homogeneous distribution,
we mean that each of the access points covers a substantial and more
or less equal part of the coverage area.
In the final phase 4, transmit powers are lowered where possible.
For the investigated building floor, it is possible to lower the EIRP of
six access points without losing the requested coverage. The requested
throughput is still achieved when we decrease the EIRP of the access
points circled in Fig. 8, from 1 dBm in Fig. 7 to 0 dBm in Fig. 8.
Final E50 and E95 values are 0.048 V/m and 0.169 V/m, EM decreases
further to 0.108 V/m.
Traditionally, network designers try to provide coverage with the
least amount of access points possible. In the considered building and
for a traditional network deployment (see Section 4.1, scenario 2),
a network with (three) access points with an EIRP of 20 dBm is
designed. The exposure values for a ‘traditional’ network design of the
investigated building are compared with the four exposure optimization
phases in Table 3. Compared to the traditional deployment, the final
exposure-optimized network (after phase 4) has an EM value that is
reduced by more than a factor 3. Also, the standard deviation σ of

Table 3. Number of access points (#APs), their EIRP needed to

cover the building floor of Fig. 4, the resulting median (E50 ) and
95%-percentile (E95 ) exposure values, the standard deviation σ of the
EM
field values, the EM value, and the gain E traditional with respect to a
M
traditional network deployment for the different optimization cases for
a homogeneous network providing a throughput of 54 Mbps.
EM
#APs EIRP E50 E95 σ EM Etraditional
Case M
[-] [dBm] [V/m] [V/m] [V/m] [V/m] [-]
Homogeneous WiFi network (54 Mbps)
After
23 1 0.053 0.190 0.071 0.122 2.70
phase 1
After between
17 0.049 0.174 0.069 0.112 2.94
phase 2 1 and 3
After between
17 0.049 0.174 0.069 0.112 2.94
phase 3 1 and 3
After between
17 0.048 0.169 0.067 0.108 3.05
phase 4 0 and 3
Traditional 3 20 0.114 0.544 0.194 0.329 1
Progress In Electromagnetics Research, Vol. 139, 2013 467

the electric-field strengths on the building floor is noticeably higher for

the traditional deployment. The exposure-optimized network causes a
more homogeneous field strength distribution.
Figure 9 shows the cumulative distribution function of the electric-
field values on the building floor of Fig. 4 for the different optimization
phases and for a traditional network deployment. Fig. 9 and Table 3
show that the largest gain is obtained by using low-power transmitters
in the first optimization phase (‘Phase 1’ vs. ‘Traditional’). According
to our metric EM , the first optimization phase yields a gain of a factor
2.70. The next optimization phases add another gain up to a factor
2.94, while at the same time reducing the number of access points from
23 to 17. The steeper slope of the exposure-optimized cdfs in Fig. 9,
indicate the lower standard deviation and thus the more homogeneous
distribution of the field strengths compared to a traditional network
design.

Figure 8. Network layout after final exposure minimization phase

(AP = dot, EIRP is indicated within dot, circles around APs indicated
access point for which EIRP has been lowered compared to phase 3).
1

0.9

0.8
Prob[signal level<abscissa]

0.7

0.6

0.5

0.4

0.3

0.2 Phase 1
Phase 2 and 3
Phase 4
0.1
Traditional
0
-2 -1
10 10 10 0
E [V/m]

Figure 9. Cumulative distribution function of electric-field values on

the building floor of Fig. 4 for the different optimization phases and
for a traditional network deployment.
468 Plets et al.

It should be noted though, that in real-life network deployments,

the total installation and operational cost will often be an important
factor in the design of the network. Seventeen access points are
required for our exposure-optimized network, almost six times more
than for the traditional design. The exposure-optimized network
not only has a higher cost, but also a higher energy consumption.
A planned extension of the network planner will enable a trade-off
between cost, energy consumption, and exposure.

6.3. Scenario 2: Comparison of Traditional vs.

Exposure-optimized Deployment for Different Throughputs
in a Homogeneous WiFi Network
In the previous section, a homogeneous WiFi network providing a
throughput of 54 Mbps is investigated. However, it is expected that
the required throughput on the building floor will have a huge influence
on the field strength distribution. In this section, we will, therefore,
assess the influence of the throughput requirement on the electric-
field strength distribution and the network design and we will make a
comparison of a traditional network design and an exposure-optimized
network design.
Table 4 summarizes the number of access points (#APs) and
their EIRP needed to cover the building floor of Fig. 4 and the field
strength distribution parameters (median (E50 ), 95%-percentile (E95 ),
EM , and standard deviation σ) for a traditional network deployment
(EIRP of APs = 20 dBm) and the exposure-optimized deployment
(according to the algorithm of Section 4.2, after phase 4). Table 4
shows that for lower throughputs, the building floor can be covered
with a substantially lower number of access points. E.g., the exposure-
optimized network requires 17 access points for a throughput of
54 Mbps, while for a throughput of 6 Mbps, only two access points
are needed. The table shows that the exposure-optimized network
reduces the value of the metric EM by a factor 3.05 for a throughput
of 54 Mbps, up to a factor 5.87 for a low throughput (6 Mbps) (column
‘gain optimized vs. traditional deployment’).
Figure 10 shows the cumulative distribution functions of the
electric-field values on the building floor of Fig. 4 for different
throughputs for the traditional network deployment vs. the exposure-
optimized network. Fig. 10 and Table 4 show that for lower
throughputs, also the field strength values decrease, as expected.
The median (E50 ) and 95%-percentile (E95 ) drop, from 0.048 V/m
and 0.169 V/m respectively, to 0.007 V/m and 0.050 V/m respectively.
Of course, for all investigated throughputs, the exposure-optimized
networks cause noticeably lower field strengths on the building floor.
Progress In Electromagnetics Research, Vol. 139, 2013 469

Fig. 10 and Table 4 show that the exposure-optimized network for

54 Mbps has a similar median (E50 ) value as the traditional deployment
for 36 Mbps (0.048 V/m vs. 0.045 V/m respectively). However, the
exposure-optimized network has a more homogeneous field distribution
(steeper slope of the cdf for optimal design in Fig. 10, lower E95 and σ
in Table 4). An increased field strength homogeneity (low variance) on
the building floor has also been taken into account in the optimization
metric of [21].

Table 4. Number of access points (#APs) and their EIRP needed

to cover the building floor of Fig. 4 and resulting median (E50 ), 95%-
percentile (E95 ), and global (EM ) exposure values, standard deviations
σ, EICNIRP
EM ratio for different intended throughputs for a traditional
network deployment vs. an exposure-optimized network deployment,
EM
and gain E traditional of the exposure-optimized network with respect to
M
the traditional network deployment.

E ICNIRP EM
Throughput #APs EIRP E 50 E 95 σ EM EM E traditional
Conguration M
[Mbps] [-] [dBm] [V/m] [V/m] [V/m] [V/m] [-] [-]

traditonal 3 20 0.114 0.544 0.194 0.329 185

54 between 3.05
optimized 17 0.048 0.169 0.067 0.108 565
0 and 3
traditonal 2 20 0.045 0.386 0.144 0.236 258
36 between 3.63
optimized 7 0.025 0.102 0.035 0.065 938
−1 and 4
traditonal 1 20 0.034 0.277 0.102 0.176 347
24 between 3.74
optimized 5 0.017 0.075 0.026 0.047 1298
−2 and 1
traditonal 1 20 0.034 0.277 0.102 0.176 347
18 4.09
optimized 4 −1 or 0 or 1 0.013 0.073 0.026 0.043 1419
traditonal 1 20 0.034 0.277 0.102 0.176 347
12 4.51
optimized 3 −4 or 1 or 1 0.011 0.062 0.022 0.039 1564
traditonal 1 20 0.034 0.277 0.102 0.176 347
6 5.87
optimized 2 −1 and 2 0.007 0.050 0.018 0.030 2033

The gain GiE (in absolute values) of using an exposure-optimized

network instead of a traditional deployment is defined as the difference
of a certain percentile value i for the two cases. In this paper, i will
be either 5, 10, 25, 50, 75, 90, or 95, but of course any percentile value
can be considered.
GiE = Etrad
i i
− Eopt [ V/m], (8)
i
with Etrad the i-th percentile of the electric-field values on the building
floor for a traditional network deployment, and Eopt i the i-th percentile
470 Plets et al.

Figure 10. Cumulative distribution function of electric-field values on

the building floor of Fig. 4 for different throughputs for the traditional
network deployment vs. the exposure-optimized network (Opt =
exposure-optimized network, Trad = traditional network design).

of the electric-field values on that building floor for an exposure-

optimized design. A value of GiE greater than zero thus means that the
exposure-optimized network has better exposure characteristics than
the traditional deployment.
Figure 11 shows the gains GiE when using an exposure-optimized
network instead of a traditional deployment for different required
throughputs. The figure shows that GiE increases for higher
throughputs (54 Mbps vs. 36 Mbps and 36 Mbps vs. 24 Mbps). This
means that for higher throughputs, exposure optimization is more
beneficial (in absolute values). However, for increasing throughputs
below 24 Mbps (i.e., from 6 Mbps to 18 Mbps), the gain decreases.
This is due to the network planning for traditional deployments: for
throughputs of 24 Mbps and lower, 1 access point with an EIRP
of 20 dBm suffices to cover the whole building floor, yielding equal
exposure characteristics, irrespective of the throughput (see Table 4,
traditional, throughput ≤ 24 Mbps). Since in the exposure-optimized
case, the network planner is able to decrease the total exposure for
decreasing throughputs (≤ 24 Mbps), the gain increases for decreasing
throughputs ≤ 24 Mbps.
Figure 11 also shows that for higher percentiles, the gain GiE
increases, e.g., G95E = 0.375 V/m vs. G50 E = 0.066 V/m for a
Progress In Electromagnetics Research, Vol. 139, 2013 471

throughput of 54 Mbps. This means that in exposure-optimized

networks, especially the high field values are lowered by the proposed
new design method, leading to a more homogeneous field distribution.
This was already shown by the lower standard deviation in Table 4
and the steeper slope of the cdfs for optimal exposure design in
Fig. 10 compared to the traditional deployment (more homogeneous
distribution).

Figure 11. Gain in electric-field strength as a function of the

percentile of the electric-field strengths on the building floor of Fig. 4
for different required throughputs.

The exposure optimization algorithm allows the network planner

to quickly assess the number of required access points and their power,
and the coverage and exposure characteristics of the resulting network.

6.4. Scenario 3: Exposure Minimization Phases for a

Heterogeneous Network WiFi-LTE Network (18 Mbps)
In this section, the four exposure minimization phases described in
Section 4.2 will be applied to a heterogeneous (WiFi and LTE) network
(see Section 4.1). In the heterogeneous scenario, one LTE femtocell
operating at 2.6 GHz with a fixed transmit power and location is
present as shown in Fig. 12 (top right of building plan). The femtocell
is indicated with a hexagon with the EIRP value inside. During the
successive optimization phases, the femtocell settings are fixed, only
the WiFi APs are assumed to be adaptable. Since the requested
coverage (18 Mbps) cannot be provided by only the femtocell, WiFi
472 Plets et al.

access points will have to be added according to the algorithm discussed

in Section 4.2 (see also Fig. 3).
In the first optimization phase, three WiFi access points with
an EIRP of 1 dBm are added (see Fig. 12) to provide the necessary
coverage on the building floor. This number of access points is
substantially lower than for the homogeneous scenario. This is mostly
due to the lower throughput requirement (18 Mbps vs. 54 Mbps), but
also partly due to the coverage of the femtocell. For this network, E50
equals 0.021 V/m, E95 equals 0.135 V/m, and EM equals 0.079 V/m.
Due to the small number of WiFi access points (three) and their
optimal placement after optimization phase 1, no further optimizations
are possible in phase 2 or phase 3. In phase 4, the EIRP of two of the
three WiFi access points (circled in Fig. 12) can be lowered to 0 dBm,
resulting in final E50 - and E95 -values of 0.020 V/m and 0.135 V/m
respectively. EM only slightly decreases to 0.077 V/m. A gain of a
factor 2.39 is obtained, compared to a traditional network deployment.
Comparison of the exposure values of Tables 5 and 3
(heterogeneous vs. homogeneous) show that electric-field values are
lower for the heterogeneous network than for the homogeneous
network. Although a femtocell with a relatively high EIRP of 10 dBm
is present, the lower exposure values are due to the lower throughput
requirement for the heterogeneous case (18 Mbps vs. 54 Mbps). Table 4
(homogenenous 18 Mbps) indeed shows that for a throughput of
18 Mbps, the optimized homogeneous network (with 4 WiFi access
points) produces lower field values and a lower variance than the
optimized heterogeneous network (Table 5), due to the relatively
high transmit power of the femtocell (10 dBm), compared to the
transmit powers of the WiFi access points (between −1 and 1 dBm, see
Table 4). The heterogeneous network has an EM value of 0.077 V/m
and a standard deviation of 0.066 V/m, compared to an EM value of
0.043 V/m and a standard deviation of 0.026 V/m for the homogeneous
case.

Figure 12. Network layout after third exposure minimization phase

(WiFi AP = dot, LTE femtocell = hexagon, EIRP is indicated within
dot or hexagon, circles around APs indicate access points for which
EIRP is lowered to 0 dBm in phase 4).
Progress In Electromagnetics Research, Vol. 139, 2013 473

Table 5. Number of access points (#APs), their EIRP needed to

cover the building floor of Fig. 4, the resulting median (E50 ) and
95%-percentile (E95 ) exposure values, the standard deviation σ of the
EM
field values, the EM value, and the gain E traditional with respect to a
M
traditional network deployment for the different optimization cases for
a heterogeneous network providing a throughput of 18 Mbps.

EM
#APs EIRP E50 E95 σ EM Etraditional
Case M
[-] [dBm] [V/m] [V/m] [V/m] [V/m] [-]
Heterogeneous LTE-WiFi network (18 Mbps)
After 1 LTE 10 (femto)
0.021 0.135 0.068 0.079 2.33
phase 1 3 WiFi 1 (WiFi)
After 1 LTE 10 (femto)
0.021 0.135 0.068 0.079 2.33
phase 2 3 WiFi 1 (WiFi)
After 1 LTE 10 (femto)
0.021 0.135 0.068 0.079 2.33
phase 3 3 WiFi 1 (WiFi)
After 1 LTE 10 (femto)
0.020 0.135 0.066 0.077 2.39
phase 4 3 WiFi 0 or 1 (WiFi)
1 LTE 10 (femto)
Traditional 0.051 0.316 0.184 0.184 1
1 WiFi 20 (WiFi)

7. VALIDATION OF DOMINANT TRANSMITTER

ASSUMPTION

In Section 3.3, it was stated that for the exposure calculations, only the
dominant transmitter has been taken into account. This assumption
will now be validated for two different topologies: a dense network
with low-power transmitters and a traditional network deployment.
The investigated dense network is the homogeneous WiFi network
depicted in Fig. 8, the traditional network is a network that provides
the same coverage, but with only 3 access points with a high transmit
power (EIRP of 20 dBm). Two calculation methods will be applied
for the field strengths E at each building floor location. The first
calculation method calculates E as Edom , the method that has been
used throughout this paper: at each location, only the contribution
of the dominant transmitter (the transmitter providing the receiver
with the highest incident field) is considered. The second calculation
method calculates E as Etotal (see Section 3.3): at each location, the
fields from all sources are considered, according to Equation (4).
Table 6 shows the value of EM for these two network topologies
474 Plets et al.

for two calculation methods for the total electric field. The table
shows that the simplification of only taking into account the dominant
transmitter (E = Edom ) causes limited errors of at most 5.45% for
a very dense network and less than 1% for a traditional network
deployment. Importantly, using Edom instead of Etotal leads to
calculations that are up to 200 times faster.

Table 6. Comparison of EM and E99 values for a traditional and an

optimized network deployment for the two calculation methods.

EM E99
Topology Edom Etotal Edom Etotal
error error
[V/m] [V/m] [V/m] [V/m]
Traditional 0.329 0.332 0.90% 1.345 1.345 0.03%
Optimized 0.108 0.114 5.45% 0.360 0.362 0.44%

As a validation of the exposure limitation algorithm, where it is

required that a certain field strength level is not exceeded, the 99%-
percentile value E99 of all recorded field values is investigated for the
two calculation methods. Table 6 shows that the use of Edom instead of
Etotal has no influence (error less than 0.5%) on the observed highest
field strengths on the building floor, for either of the two topologies
(errors of less than a half percent).

8. CONCLUSIONS AND FUTURE WORK

A heuristic indoor network planner for exposure calculation and

optimization in wireless homogeneous and heterogeneous networks is
developed, with which networks are automatically jointly optimized
for both coverage and electromagnetic exposure. The implemented
exposure models are validated by simulations and measurements. As
a first feature, an algorithm for exposure limitation is presented and
applied to a WiFi network in an office building, which is optimized
in order not to exceed a user-defined maximal electric-field strength
at a certain separation from the APs. It is shown that higher allowed
exposure limits and higher separations between the AP and the human,
allow higher transmit powers and hence, a lower number of APs is
required to provide coverage. The required number of access points
greatly differs for different countries in the world, because of different
exposure limits. As a second feature, an exposure minimization
algorithm is presented and applied to a wireless homogeneous WiFi
and a heterogeneous WiFi-LTE network, using a new metric that is
Progress In Electromagnetics Research, Vol. 139, 2013 475

simple but accurate. Depending on the required throughput, field

strength reductions of a factor 3 to 6 and a higher homogeneity of the
field strength distribution on the building floor are obtained, compared
to traditional network deployments. It is shown that exposure
minimization is more beneficial for high than for low throughput
requirements and that high field values are more reduced than low
field values. Finally, it is shown that only taking into account the
dominant transmitter for exposure calculations leads to only very
limited prediction errors.
Future research may investigate more complex metrics, where
different locations in the optimized building have different weights,
depending on the expected distribution of the human presence at
the different locations. Also, the influence of the access point duty
cycle on the exposure can be investigated [30], as well as exposure
due to uplink traffic. Finally, an algorithm for a joint optimization of
human exposure, total (deployment and operational) cost, and energy
consumption will be developed.

ACKNOWLEDGMENT

This work was supported by the IWT-SBO SymbioNets project.

W. Joseph is a Post-Doctoral Fellow of the FWO-V (Research
Foundation-Flanders).

REFERENCES

1. Ji, Z., B.-H. Li, H.-X. Wang, H.-Y. Chen, and T. K. Sarkar, “Ef-
ficient ray-tracing methods for propagation prediction for indoor
wireless communications,” IEEE Antennas and Propagation Mag-
azine, Vol. 43, No. 2, 41–49, April 2001.
2. Torres, R., L. Valle, M. Domingo, and M. Diez, “CINDOOR:
an engineering tool for planning and design of wireless systems
in enclosed spaces,” IEEE Antennas and Propagation Magazine,
Vol. 41, No. 4, 11–22, September 1999.
3. Wlfle, G., R. Wahl, P. Wertz, P. Wildbolz, and F. Landstorfer,
“Dominant path prediction model for indoor scenarios,” German
Microwave Conference, Ulm, Germany, April 2005.
4. Dimitriou, A. G., S. Siachalou, A. Bletsas and J. N. Sahalos,
“An efficient propagation model for automatic planning of indoor
wireless networks,” 3rd European Conference on Antennas and
Propagation, Barcelona, Spain, April 12–16, 2010.
5. Sebastiao, P., R. Tome, F. Velez, A. Grilo, F. Cercas, D. Robalo,
476 Plets et al.

A. Rodrigues, F. F. Varela, and C. X. P. Nunes, “WLAN planning

tool: A techno-economic perspective,” COST 2100 TD(09)935
Meeting, Vienna, Austria, September 28–30, 2009.
6. Phaiboon, S., “An empirically based path loss model for indoor
wireless channels in laboratory building,” IEEE Region 10
Conference on Computers, Communications, Control and Power
Engineering, Vol. 2, 1020–1023, October 2002.
7. Keenan, J. M. and A. J. Motley, “Radio coverage in buildings,”
BTSJ, Vol. 8, No. 1, 19–24, January 1990.
8. Plets, D., W. Joseph, K. Vanhecke, E. Tanghe, and L. Martens,
“Coverage prediction and optimization algorithms for indoor envi-
ronments,” EURASIP Journal on Wireless Communications and
Networking, Special Issue on Radio Propagation, Channel Mod-
eling, and Wireless, Channel Simulation Tools for Heterogeneous
Networking Evaluation, Vol. 1, 2012, http://jwcn.eurasipjournals.
com/content/2012/1/123.
9. Plets, D., W. Joseph, E. D. Poorter, L. Martens, and I. Moerman,
“Concept and framework of a self-regulating symbiotic network,”
EURASIP Journal on Wireless Communications and Networking,
Vol. 2012, No. 340, 2012, http://jwcn.eurasipjournals.com/conte-
nt/2012/1/340.
10. Deruyck, M., E. Tanghe, W. Joseph, and L. Martens,
“Modelling and optimization of power consumption in wireless
access networks,” Elsevier Computer Communications (Special
Issue: European Wireless 2010), Vol. 34, No. 17, 2036–2046,
November 2011.
11. Joseph, W., L. Verloock, F. Goeminne, G. Vermeeren, and
L. Martens, “Assessment of RF exposures from emerging wireless
communication technologies in different environments,” Health
Physics, Vol. 102, No. 2, 161–172, February 2012.
12. IEEE Std C95.1, “IEEE standard for safety levels with respect to
human exposure to radio frequency electromagnetic fields, 3 kHz
to 300 GHz,” 1999.
13. ICNIRP, “Guidelines for limiting exposure to time-varying
electric, magnetic, and electromagnetic fields (up to 300 GHz),”
Health Physics, Vol. 74, No. 4, 494–522, April 1998.
14. Deruyck, M., W. Vereecken, W. Joseph, B. Lannoo, M. Pickavet,
and L. Martens, “Reducing the power consumption in wireless
access networks: Overview and recommendations,” Progress In
Electromagnetics Research, Vol. 132, 255–274, 2012.
15. Foster, K. R., “Radiofrequency exposure from wireless LANs using
Wi-Fi technology,” Health Physics, Vol. 92, 280–289, 2007.
Progress In Electromagnetics Research, Vol. 139, 2013 477

16. Joseph, W., P. Frei, M. Roösli, G. Thuróczy, P. Gajsek,

T. Trcek, J. Bolte, G. Vermeeren, E. Mohler, P. Juhsz, V. Finta,
and L. Martens, “Comparison of personal radio frequency
electromagnetic field exposure in different urban areas across
Europe,” Environmental Research, Vol. 110, No. 7, 658–663, 2010.
17. Joseph, W., P. Frei, M. Roösli, G. Vermeeren, J. Bolte,
G. Thuróczy, P. Gajsek, T. Trcek, E. Mohler, P. Juhasz,
V. Finta, and L. Martens, “Between-country comparison of
whole-body SAR from personal exposure data in urban areas,”
Bioelectromagnetics, Vol. 33, No. 8, 682–694, December 2012.
18. Frei, P., E. Mohler, A. Bürgi, J. Fröhlich, G. Neubauer, C. Braun-
Fahrländer, and M. Roosli, “A prediction model for personal radio
frequency electromagnetic field exposure,” Science of The Total
Environment, Vol. 408, No. 1, 102–108, 2009.
19. Boursianis, A., P. Vanias, and T. Samaras, “Measurements for
assessing the exposure from 3G femtocells,” Radiation Protection
Dosimetry, Vol. 150, No. 2, 158–167, 2012.
20. Perentos, N., S. Iskra, A. Faraone, R. McKenzie, G. Bit-
Babik, and V. Anderson, “Exposure compliance methodologies
for multiple input multiple output (MIMO) enabled networks
and terminals,” IEEE Transactions on Antennas and Propagation,
Vol. 60, 644–653, 2012.
21. Russo, P., G. Cerri, and V. Vespasiani, “A numerical coefficient
for evaluation of the environmental impact of electromagnetic
fields radiated by base stations for mobile communications,”
Bioelectromagnetics, Vol. 31, 613–621, 2010.
22. Cerri, G., R. De Leo, D. Micheli, and P. Russo, “Base-station
network planning including environmental impact control,” IEE
Proceedings — Communications, Vol. 151, No. 3, 197–203,
June 2004.
23. Koutitas, G., “Green network planning of single frequency
networks,” IEEE Transactions on Broadcasting, Vol. 56, No. 4,
541–550, December 2010.
24. Deruyck, M., W. Joseph, and L. Martens, “Power consump-
tion model for macrocell and microcell base stations,” Trans-
actions on Emerging Telecommunication Technologies, 2012,
doi:10.1002/ett.2565.
25. ITU-R Recommendation P.1546, “Method for point-to-area
predictions for terrestrial services in the frequency range 30 MHz
to 3000 MHz,” 2003–2005.
26. Verloock, L., W. Joseph, G. Vermeeren, and L. Martens,
“Procedure for assessment of general public exposure from wlan
478 Plets et al.

in offices and in wireless sensor network testbed,” Health Physics,

Vol. 98, No. 4, 628–638, 2012.
27. European Telecommunications Standards Institute, ETSI EN
300 328-2 v1.5.1, “Electromagnetic compatibility and Radio
spectrum Matters (ERM); Wideband Transmission systems; Data
transmission equipment operating in the 2.4 GHz ISM band
and using spread spectrum modulation techniques; Part 2:
Harmonized EN covering essential requirements under article 3.2
of the R&TTE Directive Edition: 1.2.1,” August 2004.
28. Plets, D., W. Joseph, K. Vanhecke, E. Tanghe, and
L. Martens, “Simple indoor path loss prediction algo-
rithm and validation in living lab setting,” Wireless Per-
sonal Communications, 1–18, 10.1007/s11277-011-0467-4, 2013,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11277-011-0467-4.
29. International Commission on Non-ionizing Radiation Protection
(ICNIRP), “Guidelines for limiting exposure to time-varying
electric, magnetic, and electromagnetic fields (up to 300 GHz),”
Health Physics, Vol. 74, No. 4, 494–522, April 1998.
30. Joseph, W., D. Pareit, G. Vermeeren, D. Naudts, L. Verloock,
L. Martens, and I. Moerman, “Determination of the duty
cycle of WLAN for realistic radio frequency electromagnetic
field exposure assessment,” Progress in Biophysics & Molecular
Biology, October 2012.