HAN Select Options - Supporting Document - Stage 12

Industrys Draft Technical Specifications
Supporting Document
HAN Select Options
SMDG Working Group HAN Working Group
Original Author Simon Harrison
Hothouse author Simon Harrison
Reviewed by Hot House Group 3
Version Date Author Description
Version 1.0 4/8/11 Programme Baseline version uploaded to huddle. The
baseline was set at the time Industrys !ra"t
Te#hni#al $pe#i"i#ation was published.
This document was drafted by industry. It has not
been reviewed formally by the Department of
Energy and Climate Change as part of the Hot House
6-wee !rocess. Conse"uently# the wording and
structure of this document are e$clusively from
industry.
HAN WG - Recommendations
Doc Ref: HANWG.08
By HAN Working Group
Contents
1Overview ......................................................................................................................................................................
!Docu"ent Contro# .......................................................................................................................................................
$Disc#ai"er ....................................................................................................................................................................
G#ossar% & Definitions ................................................................................................................................................
'()ecutive *u""ar% .................................................................................................................................................... '
+,ntro-uction ................................................................................................................................................................. +
.Group Activities ........................................................................................................................................................... +
8*/HAN specific ter"ino#o0% ..................................................................................................................................... 8
10Desi0n Assu"ptions ............................................................................................................................................... 10
11/a1in0 a HAN Decision .......................................................................................................................................... 1!
1$HAN 2echno#o0ies ................................................................................................................................................... 1'
1'3urther Consi-erations ........................................................................................................................................... 1'
$!HAN (va#uation Criteria .......................................................................................................................................... $+
$Confor"ance 2estin0 of Direct#% Connecte- */HAN Devices ........................................................................... $.
Appen-i) A 4 HAN (va#uation ()ercise ..................................................................................................................... 0
Appen-i) 5 4 HAN 2estin0 ()ercise Report .............................................................................................................. 1
Appen-i) C 4 HAN (*oDR6 (va#uation Criteria ........................................................................................................ $
1 Overview
This paper is a deliverable produced by the HAN WG. It describes the activities of the group and collects
materials produced by the group. Where appropriate it presents options and recommendations to the
Programme related to the use of HAN technologies to support smart metering.
! Docu"ent Contro#
Version Date Author Description
0.1 12/5/11 Simon
Harrison
Initial Draft
0.2 7/6/11 Simon
Harrison
Updated
before
meeting
#14
0.3 21/6/11 Simon
Harrison
Update
following
meeting
#14
0.4 28/6/11 Simon
Harrison
Update
ahead of
final HAN
WG
meeting
0.5 30/6/11 Simon
Harrison
Update
following
final HAN
WG
meeting
Distributed
to HAN
WG
attendees
0.6 4/7/11 Simon
Harrison
Further
iteration
following
final HAN
WG
meeting
0.7 8/7/11 Simon
Harrison
Update for
Hothouse
review
0.8 11/7/11 Simon
Harrison
Update to
Appendix
B
$ Disc#ai"er
This document presents options relating to the operation of smart metering in Great Britain. The options
presented do not represent all possible solutions. We have used reasonable endeavours to ensure the
accuracy of the contents of the document but offer no warranties (express or implied) in respect of its
accuracy or that the proposals or options will work. To the extent permitted by law, the Energy Retail
Association and its members and any members of the HAN Working Group do not accept liability for any
loss which may arise from reliance upon information contained in this document. This document is
presented for information purposes only and none of the information or options presented herein constitutes
an offer.
G#ossar% & Definitions
For consistency with other deliverables from the HAN WG and other working groups, the terms and
definitions used in this document comply with the SMDG glossary maintained online during the
development stage of the Programme.
The glossary can be viewed here:
https://sites.google.com/site/smdgsg1/smdg-glossary
' ()ecutive *u""ar%
This document presents considerations and recommendations for a number of issues associated with the
concept of a Home Area Network (HAN) for smart metering. It has not been possible to reach conclusions
on all of the issues discussed by the HAN WG, indeed some issues would require extensive real world
testing or on the job learning to resolve definitively.
Wherever possible, the HAN WG has provided options relating to these issues and recommendations against
these options.
As presented in detail below, the HAN WG has adopted an approach of clarification and specification, rather
than selection, throughout its work. Acknowledging that the most immediate challenge from the Programme
and industry with regard to a Smart Metering HAN (SMHAN) is finding options that work effectively and
interoperably today, it remains the case that;
% There are no convincing obvious answers on technologies; even the market leaders are relatively
immature, or have key gaps in their specification
% Technology options are constantly developing (in terms of performance and interoperability), with
the potential for improved and better options to arrive very quickly
% The evidence base, particularly for wired HAN options, is extremely limited.
Therefore the working assumption of the HAN WG has been to provide guidance on evaluating HAN
technologies, and the main recommendation is that the Programme utilises the Evaluation Criteria and Tests
developed by the group (see Appendix) to support either;
% A specification and fit for purpose assurance regime on an on-going basis, or
% A selection process undertaken by the Programme or under Industry auspices, to determine the most
suitable HAN technology set to deliver HAN connectivity for GB.
These options are not necessarily mutually exclusive. Any initial fitness for purpose assurance assessment
could also serve as a selection process, and the on-going testing for new technologies (including
interoperability fit with existing) would ensure that the smart metering door remained open to new solutions
where appropriate.
What is exceptionally clear is that further testing is needed, and evidence needs to be gathered to cut through
claims, assumptions and marketing blurb. It is the view of the HAN WG that any testing regime needs to
include field tests of both wired and wireless HAN solutions in a range of GB meter locations, particularly
those viewed as difficult.
The HAN WG has spent considerable time challenging some of the common perceptions of HAN solutions,
or the issues they will encounter. Whilst some myth busting has been possible, there is a concern that this
might be knowledge that is limited, or could be transitory, unless it is appropriately acknowledged and
embedded within published Programme documents and developed further in planned activities that follow
this piece of work.
In particular, the key issues remain in the minority cases for example, where the gas meter is in a difficult
position, or where the system has to work in high-rise buildings and these issues are as much about
perception as they are about fact. Similarly, the presumed resolution of these issues use of a wired
solution, use of a different radio remain unproven assumptions. In order to remove the uncertainty, more
information on potential wired solutions is needed, and testing of both wired and wireless options is
required.
From the work of the group, in line with the work of the Difficult Meter Positions WG, it would be
reasonable to assume that 70-80% of premises can be served by one or more wireless technologies, and that
a variety of infill technologies or equipment could be used to deliver connectivity for the remainder.
The main issue encountered by the group was that the HAN remains a relatively immature use of new
technologies there is little evidence globally of large-scale deployments to call upon on. Decisions made in
other implementations appear to have been made mainly on paper-based assessment processes, and in
market structures that do not apply the key interoperability stress test that the GB energy market places on
metering components.
However, our informal evaluation exercise (see Appendix A) has shown that there are options for the main
wireless SMHAN technology, and that these options could be aligned with the GB requirements within the
proposed time constraints. A number of members of the HAN WG support that the next step should be a
selection process, and then work with selected technologies to deliver assurance and confidence in
performance and interoperability. Other members feel that it is not necessary for the selection to be done by
the Programme, as the GB market is currently working towards a market leader independently of the
Programme.
The key recommendations of the HAN WG are:
% To utilise the Evaluation Criteria and Tests attached to this document as a proposed enduring
appendix to the ESoDR either for a specification regime or selection activity
% Clarification from the Programme on specification and/or selection would resolve some of the
ambiguity in this critical area and allow for clear planning on the next steps
% To undertake real world testing of HAN technologies very soon, and to gather evidence from early
implementations, to inform the Evaluation Criteria documentation and ensure it is fit for purpose
% Build on the initial foundation of lab testing done by the HAN WG by undertaking a more
substantial research and real world testing activity, specifically including powerline technologies
% The Programme needs to resolve the issue between robustness and coverage, in order to determine
what types of hardware can be used for difficult meter positions
% Further paper-based investigation could be done on technical issues such as antenna design
recommendations, a detailed security assessment of suitability and practicality, and other issues that
would not fundamentally change/alter any key technical requirements.
+ ,ntro-uction
This paper forms the final deliverable of the HAN Working Group. It describes the work of the group,
collects the material produced by the group in particular the proposed HAN schedule to the ESoDR
where appropriate, presents options and recommendations to the Programme.
. Group Activities
The HAN Working Group met on 16 occasions between February and June 2011. Participating members of
the group were drawn from across industry and included:
% Meter manufacturers
% Silicon vendors
% Communications experts
% Radio experts
% Security experts
% Energy retailers
% Non domestic participants
% Government and regulatory participants
A wider distribution list, of over 50 members, were papers only participants providing review and
comment and included solution providers, experts and interested parties from across Europe, America and
Asia. The HAN WG received a number of valuable contributions from this wider distribution list and would
like to put on record its thanks to all who contributed in writing and in person to the work of the Group.
A key element of the work of the HAN WG was to ensure consistent design and development work with the
peer SMDG working groups some key highlights have been:
The HAN WG initially worked closely with the Architectures WG to review and inform the high-
level architectures for the SMHAN
The HAN WG shares a number of members with the Difficult Meter Positions WG, and both groups
have aligned their activities to take account of each others and wider Programme requirements
Members of the Interoperability Testing WG have joined the HAN WG for a number of sessions,
with a particular view to understanding how HAN testing and certification may be deployed on an
on-going basis
The group was charged with producing HAN evaluation/selection criteria to support the relevant ESoDR
requirements, and yet to be developed architectural and security requirements. The appendix to this
document reflects a successful delivery against this target.
The group produced a number of documents to support this final deliverable, and others which served a
purpose to advance issues and understanding. All of the papers for meetings, outputs from the group and
related materials can be viewed at the group website - https://sites.google.com/site/smdghanwg
The group undertook an informal evaluation and testing exercise to assist with raising the profile of the GB
requirements, and to gauge the practicality and suitability of the draft Evaluation Criteria. An appendix to
this document describes the exercise and the results.
The figure below highlights the overall flow of the work within the group on the key Evaluation Criteria
deliverable:
(va# 2estin0
*ecurit% Re7s
(*oDR
(va#uation
Criteria
(va#uation
()ercise
A-8ust9 :p-ate
(va#uation
Criteria
Reco""en-
;erfor"ance &
Non 3unc Re7<s
A-- -etai# to HA
re7<s in (*oDR
Refer to (*oDR
HAN *che-u#e
Existing & Updated high
level functional
requirements
Functional requirements
expressed in real world
context for evaluation
2echno#o0%
*uita=i#it%
*o"e
and/
or
None A##
Assess Options &
Gaps
,ssues Options
As might be addressed by
amending requirements
Ne)t *teps
A
c
t
i
v
i
t
y

t
o

p
r
o
v
i
d
e

F
i
t

F
o
r

u
r
p
o
s
e
!

"
A
#

r
e
q
u
i
r
e
m
e
n
t
s

t
o

a
c
h
i
e
v
e

i
n
t
e
r
o
p
e
r
a
b
i
l
i
t
y

&

c
o
v
e
r
a
g
e
a
r
a
l
l
e
l

a
s
s
e
s
s
m
e
n
t

o
f

m
a
r
$
e
t

a
n
d

a
v
a
i
l
a
b
l
e

t
e
c
h
n
o
l
o
g
i
e
s

%
a
n
d

h
o
w

r
e
a
l
i
s
t
i
c

r
e
q
u
i
r
e
m
e
n
t
s

a
r
e
Figure HAN WG Activity
8 */HAN specific ter"ino#o0%
The HAN WG has developed definitions for a number of key terms throughout its work. It recommends that
these terms are included in the ESoDR glossary. The following paragraphs summarise these terms and
explain their meaning and use.
&'( )*"A# +evice ,lasses
A number of classes of Device have been defined. The definitions are:
Approved SMHAN Device An Approved SMHAN Device has been
Approved for direct connection to the UK
SMHAN. It will be identified with an
approval Mark.
Authenticated SMHAN Device An Approved Device that has been
authenticated for attachment to a specific
SMHAN.
Active SMHAN Device An Authenticated Device that is currently
operating on a specific SMHAN.
Detached SMHAN Device An Approved Device that formerly was
authenticated, but has had this
authentication removed. A Detached
SMHAN Device may be re-attached by
going through the authentication
procedure again.
Gateway SMHAN Device An Approved SMHAN Device which
includes an interface to other devices
outside the SMHAN (e.g. home energy
management systems).
Unapproved Device Any device which is not approved for
direct connection to an SMHAN.
The following notes apply to the above Device classes:
Only Approved SMHAN Devices can be Active on an SMHAN
Approved SMHAN Devices can be connected to the SMHAN with an Authentication process that is
implemented by the system
A handheld installer terminal is an example of an Approved SMHAN Device that may be
Authenticated but subsequently Detached and therefore no longer Active. The terminal would be
Authenticated for use whilst installing a customers SMHAN, but would then be Detached from that
SMHAN on completion of the installation, preventing this Device from becoming Active again on
that SMHAN
An example of an Authenticated but not Active Device would be an electric vehicle which has been
driven away from coverage of the SMHAN for which it is Authenticated
Unapproved Devices can be connected via a Gateway SMHAN Device which is itself an Approved
SMHAN Device. This means that householders are NOT permitted to buy any commercially
available HAN device (e.g. a third party energy management system) and connect it directly to the
SMHAN, unless it is Approved. This constraint is to protect the SMHAN security
A set of APIs will be defined and published for Gateway SMHAN Devices, setting out what
information is allowed to be written via the Gateway into the SMHAN and read by the Gateway from
the SMHAN.
The figure below illustrates the relationship between the Device types described above.

Approved SMHAN Devices Unapproved Devices
Authenticated SMHAN Devices
Active SMHAN Devices Detached SMHAN Devices
Figure Types of HAN Devices
&'- .ther )*"A# +evices
In addition to the main Device classes listed above, two other types of device may be used in some SMHAN
installations. These will need to be Approved and Authenticated in order to connect to an SMHAN. The
definitions are:
SMHAN Bridge Device An Approved SMHAN Device which
passes data between two physically
different mediums, providing translation
of message formats where necessary.
SMHAN Repeater Device An Approved SMHAN Device which
receives an SMHAN signal and
retransmits the signal on the same
physical medium and network
(SMHAN).
The following notes apply to the above Device classes:
An SMHAN Bridge Device may be used, for example, where physical installation limitations mean
that a combination of wired and wireless communication is required to connect Smart Metering
System Device to the rest of the SMHAN
An SMHAN Repeater Device may be used, for example, where a Device to be connected to the
SMHAN is too far away (or attenuation is too great) for it to operate reliably when connected
directly to the SMHAN
Note that suppliers have stated that connections via the SMHAN to meters used for billing purposes
cannot be subject to easy or inadvertent disconnection by customers. This implies that SMHAN
Bridge and Repeater Devices used to connect meters would need to be powered from supply side, or
otherwise provided with power that is independent of customer action. Connections to IHD devices
should be in the interest of consumers to maintain, and therefore, use of plug-in extenders is
permissible
Other names for SHMAN Repeater Devices include Boosters, Extenders, Routers and Range
Extenders.
HAN WG Recommendation(s):
9 The HAN WG recommends that these terms, definitions and approaches are part of the wider
SMDG and Smart Metering documentation
10 Desi0n Assu"ptions
Throughout, the HAN WG has worked to a collection of Design Assumptions these were published to the
Programme as an early deliverable.
The design assumptions used by the HAN WG;
All Smart Metering System Devices shall communicate via the SMHAN and will each require
SMHAN hardware to support this
Each Smart Metering System device shall be capable of being exchanged
The Smart Metering System shall contain a Device which acts as the controller for the SMHAN.
This controller must exist for both wireless and wired HANs although the detailed implementation
will differ in each case. The controller will store relevant and appropriate information about the
network
The controller can be considered as a piece of software which runs on an embedded micro controller
somewhere in the system, and which has an interface to an SMHAN Device
The SMHAN is a network communications system that transports messages between the Devices
connected to it. The primary responsibility for system functionality will be in the application
software resident in the connected Devices
The SMHAN may also contain some system functionality and will need to interface with application
layer software in order to implement all functions. SMHAN system functionality is implementation
dependent but could include tasks such as authentication and access control
The SMHAN is configured to carry messages between connected Devices as determined by
configuration and application code resident on Devices within the Smart Meter System
Access control mechanisms will be built into the system software and hardware to allow message
transfer between Devices in an approved manner
The messages which are transported by the SMHAN may be encrypted for security or privacy
reasons
The SMHAN will support physical layer media of three types: a wireless based system, a power line
communications (PLC) system, and a direct wired
1
system. Our current assumptions of the relative
proportions are:
Figure Illustration of SMHAN Physical Layer Coverage
As propagation issues will impact the percentage of SMHANs that are purely wireless, some Smart
Metering Systems will need to use wired solutions to tackle issues such as tall apartment blocks
The Smart Metering System application will need to work across the three physical layer media
types
Apart from configuration, the Smart Metering System application should have equivalent features
across the three physical layer media types
% The direct wired system could be electrical or optical.
The SMHAN will have interfaces to metering Devices and the IHD
All architecture options require an SMHAN
The Smart Metering System allows the connection of Approved Devices to the SMHAN. Examples
of Approved Devices include Generation Meters and Load Control Devices
The Smart Metering System allows the connection of other networks and consumer devices through
Gateway SMHAN Devices, attached to the SMHAN
The SMHAN must coexist with other networks that might be present in the home. These include
WLAN devices (e.g. for broadband connection), powerline devices, and wireless devices that
consumers may purchase for energy managementInstallation or test Devices (e.g. used by installers)
will also need to be connected to the SMHAN. These will need to be Approved SMHAN Devices.
11 /a1in0 a HAN Decision
From the outset, the HAN WG has faced the challenge of delivering options to the Programme without the
consideration of those options becoming a solution selection process. The mandate to the group was to
consider all solution options against the requirements and to recommend how the Programme or Industry
might subsequently determine the most appropriate technical solution, or combination of solutions.
At no point has the target of the HAN WG been to pick a winner there has not been the time, resource or
budget to undertake such a selection with anything approaching the required diligence for technology that
will be installed into every home in Great Britain.
The HAN WG presented a paper
2
to the SMDG and Design Authority, outlining the approach being taken
and the consequences. The assumption of the HAN WG has been endorsed throughout this assumption has
been to produce criteria to sit alongside the ESoDR requirements to increase confidence that individual
HAN technology candidates are fit for purpose.
The full paper can be reviewed at the HAN WG internet site a summary of the content is presented here.
(('( .ptions
When discussing a Smart Metering Home Area Network (SMHAN) for GB homes, a fundamental decision
needs to be made regarding the selection of standards and technologies to be used in the SMHAN:
Select a GB SMHAN Standard to work with certain physical media; OR
Publish a GB SMHAN Requirements Specification potentially applicable to multiple standards and
physical media.
Selecting a standard can mean different things to different people depending on the context, so it is
important to clarify what we mean by a SMHAN standard and why it is important to be clear about this.
In simpler language:
a) That GB smart metering use the following Standards and Physical Media for the SMHAN:
a. WaveBee (a made-up fictitious standard) RF and
b. PowerPlug (a made-up fictitious standard) Wired
b) That GB smart metering use SMHAN technologies which meet the following requirements
a. Successful evaluation/certification from TestLab Co. (a made-up, fictitious company) against
the technical and non-technical HAN evaluation criteria documented alongside this
recommendation
There are real world (i.e. not technological or interoperability) implications of the two options.
& H'( )* Decision +ptions v%.%
With Option A a named technology/solution the main consequence is that the choice between solutions
within physical domains is removed. This makes it easier for a customer to purchase devices that will work
with the smart metering system in their home they do not need to know if they have a VHS or Betamax
home (or HD-DVD or BluRay, or DVD-R+ or DVD-R-), as every smart metering system connects using
WaveBee radios or PowerPlug wired connections.
However, picking a technology now ties all homes to that solution for at least 15 years, possibly longer. It is
less than 15 years since VHS was the only sensible option for video, which has seen three generations of
technology since. There is a risk of obsolescence as a result of picking a standard today and no-one can
know if WaveBee will still be relevant in 15 years. At the same time, the ubiquity of smart metering
guarantees a market for the technology, and therefore should see it develop harmoniously rather than
resulting in SMHAN devices becoming impractical. The risk of a technology that appears viable today
becoming irrelevant within the lifecycle of a generation of smart meters remains.
Option A also presents a legal and regulatory concern for the Programme. Making a decision on a particular
standard within a Government Programme presents a number of specific challenges that are simply not there
if that decision occurs within a commercial market i.e. sometimes a single solution becomes the defacto
standard, as illustrated in the VHS vs. Betamax or BluRay vs. HD-DVD markets.
Option B provides less specific certainty, but could provide some guidance to assist customers and product
developers who need customers. Rather than explicitly stating WaveBee RF, the recommendation could be
for an RF solution that is standards compliant, within a specific frequency band (or bands) if applicable or
available, deploying specific security measures and meeting the performance standards set by the Evaluation
Process. Any candidate technology would need to be evaluated by an independent certification body before
earning the right to mark their products as Type Approved GB Smart Meter Compliant.
This approach is analogous to the development of the Digital TV market equipment must be marked as
compliant with requirements before it can add the Freeview mark but this is an industry/market activity
and not something coming from central Government. However, this development occurred only after the
regulator had provided guidance to the industry by recommending that they built on the leading established
solution to develop their standard.
We may see developments where products include more than one way for connections to be made laptops
and phones have various physical options, and SMHAN devices might follow suit when WaveBee or Z-Zig
radios become as economic as Wi-Fi and Bluetooth radios are now for their particular applications.
The Programme is also a Government activity and the activities and recommendations of the Working
Group do not have to be strictly followed by industry (unless reflected in regulations), which could see the
market settle on a single solution that meets the HAN WG requirements. The distinction on context between
Programme and Industry is significant and should not be lost in the discussion.
Similarly, any Government specification that named individual technologies or versions of technologies
could result in some very detailed scrutiny from Europe to ensure standards compliance.
(('- /mpacts of .ptions
Whether or not a particular HAN technology (or element of a technology) is specified by the Programme
will have an impact on several parties. Some considerations from different stakeholders are shown below.
It is key to note that, in the absence of a universal SMHAN technology (which must be wireless to meet the
assumptions for gas meters), any selection would include:
Preferred wireless SMHAN solution, and
Wired SMHAN infill solution, and
Secondary wireless SMHAN infill solution
Several of the assessments presented below are necessarily, and sometimes deliberately, subjective and are
simply illustrations.
11.&.1 'ustomer
As discussed in an appendix to the HAN WG Decision Options paper, it is perceived that having a single
national standardised set of SMHAN technologies would simplify the environment for the customer.
Any SMHAN Gateway, or any other device, service or application seeking to connect directly to the
SMHAN, would need to use the selected SMHAN solution.
However, it is important to note that any Consumer HANs may be entirely separate networks that connect to
the SMHAN via an Approved Gateway Device and so knowing what SMHAN the Smart Meter System
uses is relevant only when considering the Gateway, which could be a device with wired/wireless ports or on
board modularity. Gateway functionality could include redundancy to allow several types of connections, or
could be embedded as an additional feature within a device created to perform a different primary function.
Therefore, internet routers or set-top boxes could include SMHAN hardware and offer convergence of
different services, or Gateway functionality could be embedded in advanced IHDs, or new thermostats
simply by including the necessary SMHAN hardware.
A single standard would make Gateway design and purchases straightforward, but if there are alternative
SMHAN technologies, then a customer may need to know what standard is used in their home. The HAN
WG does not anticipate this being a particularly long list if there is no mandated option it should represent
the same as petrol or diesel, PC or Mac, or Phone Line or Cable but may not be something that all
customers remember and they may need to investigate if they decide to purchase a Gateway.
Alongside increasing certainty, and removing any potential confusion, selecting a single standard will also
increase the risk to customers if that single standard fails, and they are required to replace or supplement
equipment as a result of that single point of failure. A failure in the successful operation of the chosen
SMHAN technology will reflect very badly on the overall implementation of smart metering, as it is one of
the areas that customers will actually be involved in.
11.&.& Installer
It has been considered that if HAN solutions were selected then the logistical and operational challenge for
field work could be lessened. If components only ever use one or two selected technologies, then inventory
and diagnostic challenges should be much simpler than if a range of options are available.
A single set of solutions might be restrictive or challenging for an installer at a first implementation of the
smart meters achieving a reliable connection for all devices could be more difficult than if there were an
option to use a wider range of fit for purpose wireless and wired equipment than might have been
mandated.
Finally, any subsequent maintenance work should be simplified for installers and field workers arriving to
address issues with smart metering equipment diagnostic tools, or replacement equipment can all be
developed using straightforward assessments about SMHAN hardware.
11.&.( $upplier
Fixing the SMHAN options to a specified list should simplify matters for Suppliers they would not need to
consider HAN options when procuring metering equipment, and they could provide customers with advice
on HAN issues with certainty about the common techniques that could be used.
A selection of technologies should remove any risk to Suppliers on SMHAN interoperability when
customers change Supplier.
However, a single set of options would restrict commercial and technical innovation opportunities for
Suppliers to offer something different, particularly if there are challenging issues for the selected
technologies.
11.&.4 )anu"a#turer
Meter manufacturers are leading participants and promoters of HAN technology standards, and therefore
should be comfortable with a single solution set they are familiar with. GB trade associations are developing
working methods to ensure that manufacturer options within technologies do not break interoperability.
Gaining interoperability or conformance testing approval for a single technology should be simpler for a
manufacturer, although a risk would remain that this might actually be a bottleneck or additional cost on the
industry.
At the same time, meter manufacturers sell into a range of international markets, and need to support a range
of HAN technologies within their products. Fixing on one solution for GB might deprive this market of any
relevant developments and advances on other platforms within individual manufacturers, or their trade
associations.
12 That the Programme take account of the materials presented by the HAN WG and clarify the next
steps for HAN technologies specification or selection
1$ HAN 2echno#o0ies
The HAN WG identified over 40 potential technologies as being candidates for use in an SMHAN context.
It undertook a Request For Information activity with these technologies. The responses and other
information are captured in the HAN WG product HANWG.06.
Figure Clipped Extract of HANWG.06 Product
The figure below provides a simplified summary of information relating to technologies which responded to
our RFI, and reflects the information provided to the HAN WG and has not been independently verified.
Dash .
$$ /H>
I$* 18000%1
Wire#ess options
$1' to $$ /H>
3#e)Net
?00 /H>
+le,-et
(nOcean
8+8 /H>
@or $1'/H>A
.n*#ean
OneNet
8+8 /H>
*ne-et
,;'00
8+8 /H>
I...
80&.1/.4
IP/00 based
on 01owP2-
*ultiple
including
0A,#et
BNC
8+8 /H>
@or ;DCA
Ei05ee
*u=GH>
8+8 /H>
D(C2
:D(
1.F GH>
@or !.GH>A
.T$I .-%(00 13/
!.'T networ4
layer or $.P&.0
similar
2ny IP based
Ei05ee
;ro9*(;1.)
!. GH>
I... 80&.1/.4
5igBee Pro
/ $.P1
!1)$ / $.P 1.,
!1)$ tunneling
Ei05ee ,;
9 *(;!.)
!. GH>
I... 80&.1/.4
or IP
#ompliant Phy
IPv0
!1)$ /
$.P &.,
EWave
8+8 /H>
5wave Phy
5wave networ4
!1)$ / 2dvan#ed
.nergy 'ontrol
+le,-et
+le,-et
!1)$ / $.P1.,
6-7 / )B8$ /
.n*#ean
.-/0090
Ph1
6-7 /
)B8$
I... 80&.1/.4
5igBee Pro
at sub:;<
in development
1o be defined
8+8 /H>
1.F GH>
!. GH>
;DC G$
$41'0 1H> Cene#ec
@or 104$F0 1H> 3CCA
*+!)
IPv0
!1)$ / $.P&.,
G.hn
04!'/H>
*+!)
IPv4 or IPv0
!1)$ / $.P&.,
G.hne"
04'001H>
*+!)
IPv4 or IPv0
!1)$ / $.P&.,
Ho"e;#u0
Green;h%
!4$0/H>
*+!)
IPv4 or IPv0
$.P&.,
Narrow=an-
Wire- ;DC options
5roa-=an-
5ACNet
)ultiple options
B2'-et layer
B2'-et layer
DN;$
)ultiple options
!-P( data model
!-P( layer
N4DNet
04'001H>
;omePlug or
wireless (/0%9/0 );<
;ybridmesh
!1)$ / )B8$
Options with no specific or "u#tip#e
;h%sica# #a%er
Figure Overview of Technologies in HANWG.06 Document
14 That the Programme, and industry, continue to monitor developments in wired and wireless
technologies, as even during the course of HAN WG meetings there were key changes.
1' 3urther Consi-erations
During the work of the HAN WG, a number of key issues were discussed some related to design
considerations, some to security, some to commercial elements. Where these issues were considered suitably
important, the WG produced papers explaining the issue and any known options.
Materials from these papers which are relevant are included in this section of the report.
(2'( "A# 3ariants4 including robustness vs' coverage considerations
The HAN WG has considered the practical implications of attempting to connect Smart Metering System
components in every GB premises covered by the Programme. Whilst the overwhelming majority of
premises should be served well by existing technology options, a number will require different physical
hardware to achieve reliable connection.
As part of the work of the group, a paper was issued to other WGs, seeking their input on the potential
issues arising from needing to consider more than one physical layer in a single SMHAN installation.
The HAN WG have assumed a requirement for Wireless and Wired options for a HAN, but also that a wired
option is not appropriate for a gas meter, based on recommendations from Suppliers and Manufacturers on
the economics of producing a suitably AtEx-rated gas meter for a minority of installations. Of particular
concern to the HAN WG is the need to provide a HAN connection to gas meters in challenging locations.
1/.1.1 !es#ription o" Issue = 'onsiderations
It has been assumed by the HAN WG that low power radio will not be suitable to provide HAN connectivity
for all homes in the country, without additional extender hardware. Depending on meter location,
construction materials, and other factors, it may be necessary for alternative technologies to supplement or
replace low power radio.
This paper attempts to illustrate the consequences of this from a HAN hardware perspective only we are
seeking to establish a reliable connection. Economics, logistics, interoperability and other issues are not
addressed in detail.
(2'- ,overage vs' 5obustness
A number of the scenarios illustrated make use of additional boxes to achieve a connection. Whether these
be repeaters, extenders or boosters (as supported by requirement HA.9 in the ESoDR), there is a concern
that this might be in conflict with requirement OP.1 of the ESoDR that no part of the infrastructure is
reliant upon third parties, including consumers, for ongoing availability.
The issue is that, presently, the current options for range extenders tend to be of the plug-in or plug-
through variety, and therefore at risk of being deliberately or inadvertently turned off by consumers.
Discussions within the HAN WG have distinguished that where equipment being supported by HAN range
extenders is used to deliver a perceived customer service/benefit, such as for an IHD, this may be
fundamentally different from where HAN range extenders are required for a core utility service, like the
connection to a gas meter.
If a customer unplugs an extender and the effect is that their IHD drops off the SMHAN, this is viewed as an
acceptable result of cause and effect. However, OP.1 excludes devices that rely upon the customer to pay
their electricity bill so even hardwired solutions on the consumer mains wiring to support extenders for
gas meters are not acceptable. There may be exceptions where there is common/landlord power available as
one might expect in public areas of multi-occupant premises.
Whilst plug-in extenders may come equipped with battery backups, this adds cost and only provides a
temporary support as range extenders generally need to be mains powered to fulfil their activity
satisfactorily.
However, plug-in range extenders are perceived as relatively cheap and interoperable devices, especially
compared to the installation cost/disturbance of a hardwired option, or the interoperability issues that might
result from having to use a different technology to reach remote nodes, particularly battery operated ones
like gas meters.
1/.&.1 2 )esh might help
Some of the RF technologies being considered for the HAN are capable of operating as mesh networks. This
would reinforce and extend the range of the networks, particularly for multi-occupant premises.
An illustration of how RF could mesh is shown below.
Basement
1
st
+loor
(rd +loor
&nd +loor
4th +loor
:round +loor
Figure Illustration of Mesh
However, not all of the technologies being considered support a mesh, there are possible logistical issues
with the installation, power and robustness of the mesh points. No wired option supports mesh. The security
considerations for mesh solutions have not been discussed.
Most importantly, mesh provides an alternative to a variant using standard RF kit it does not drive
variants, and therefore is not a central consideration.
1/.&.& !es#ription o" Variants
Each one of the Variants is illustrated using simple functional block pictures with the SMHAN hardware
described as either RF for a radio, or PLC for a power line transceiver.
Other conventions are also used:
% The DCC could be a third party if a SME customer has elected to unbundle
% There are architectures where there is no physical communications hub, or where the hub is
integrated into the electricity meter
Neither of these issues is seen as material to the consideration of SMHAN hardware, so a typical
installation is used to illustrate the position.
A number of these variants may be inconsistent with Programme requirements in the ESoDR (e.g. Variant 2a
and OP.1), or the agreed architectures, but are included for completeness of the assessment of options.
No assumptions have been made about radio performance, propagation, connectivity or interoperability it
simply deals with the hardware implications of needing to provide HAN connectivity to all Smart Metering
System components.
It is expected that each of the physical hardware options is capable of transporting a common application
layer i.e. that the same data items, security and message protocols can be used over radios and wires
within the same SMHAN network context.
Whilst the HAN WG Design Assumptions allow for a dedicated wiring option for circumstances where
neither RF or PLC are suitable, this is believed to be an option that will be used in an absolute minimum of
sites, and no further detail is addressed here.
Standard: All Wireless
Anticipated to be suitable for the majority of smart meter implementations. This model includes a SMHAN
radio in each of the Smart Metering System components.
Co""s Hu=
R3
(#ec /eter Gas /eter
,HD
R3 R3
R3
WAN
DCC
Figure Standard Installation
Variant 1a: Hybrid Comms Hub to Wired IHD
Under this variant, as might be found where metering equipment is remote from dwelling quarters i.e. in
multiple occupant properties, the Comms Hub includes a SMHAN Radio and a SMHAN PLC transceiver.
The PLC connection utilises mains wiring to reach an IHD unit with a suitable PLC transceiver.
Co""s Hu=
;DC R3
,HD
R3 R3
WAN
DCC
;DC
Figure Variant 1a
The implications of this variant:
Hybrid Comms Hubs need to be available to use at installation
PLC IHDs need to be available to use at installation, increasing the number of IHD variants
Customer needs to be aware that their IHD connects via PLC and not RF
There may be particular security issues with data on PLC layer leaking beyond the property
Variant 1b: Hybrid Comms Hub to Wired Electricity Meter
Under this variant, similar to 1b, it is the electricity meter which requires a PLC connection to the Comms
Hub.
Co""s Hu=
R3
,HD
R3 R3
R3
WAN
DCC
;DC
;DC
Figure Variant 1b
PLC Meters (or modules) need to be available to use at installation, increasing the number of meter
variants
Variant 1c: Hybrid Comms Hub to PLC equipped mains powered components
Under this variant, a combination of 1a and 1b, both the electricity meter and IHD requires a PLC
connection to the Comms Hub. The gas meter connects via RF.
Co""s Hu=
R3
,HD
R3 R3
WAN
DCC
;DC
;DC
;DC
Figure Variant 1c
PLC Meters (or modules) need to be available to use at installation
PLC IHDs need to be available to use at installation
Customer needs to be aware that their IHD connects via PLC and not RF
Variant 2a: Wireless Range Extender to Gas Meter (and other RF devices)
Under this variant the gas meter cannot obtain a reliable connection using the standard SMHAN RF
hardware. Additional SMHAN RF hardware could be used to bring the gas meter radio within range.
Co""s Hu=
R3
(#ec /eter
Gas /eter
,HD
R3
WAN
DCC
R3
R3
()ten-er 9
Repeater
R3
Figure Variant 2a

Extender/Repeater equipment to be available and suitable/robust for use as noted in the
considerations discussion above
The extender/repeater could be used to link to any RF device, as shown below, and could potentially
reduce the number of meter and IHD variants required.
Where the Electricity Meter and Comms Hub are collocated:
Co""s Hu=
R3
(#ec /eter
Gas /eter
,HD
R3
WAN
DCC
R3
R3
()ten-er 9
Repeater
R3
Figure Variant 2a - alternative
Or where the Comms Hub is located away from smart metering devices, probably to maximize signal
strength for the WAN connection (or to avoid significant interference for the WAN):
Co""s Hu=
R3
(#ec /eter
Gas /eter
,HD
R3
WAN
DCC
R3
R3
()ten-er 9
Repeater
R3
Figure Variant 2a Alternative 2
Variant 2b: Wired Range Extender to Gas Meter
Under this variant the gas meter cannot obtain a reliable connection using the standard HAN RF hardware.
Additional SMHAN hardware could be used to bring the gas meter radio within range using PLC.
Co""s Hu=
R3
(#ec /eter
Gas /eter
,HD
R3
WAN
DCC
R3
R3
()ten-er 9
Repeater
R3 ;DC
;DC
Figure Variant 2b
Extender/Repeater equipment to be available and suitable/robust for use
Extender/Repeater with PLC and RF is likely to be more expensive than an RF-only
repeater/extender
Hybrid Comms Hub with PLC hardware is available
An alternative approach to a PLC range extender is to keep the PLC hardware as a stand alone network
bridge as shown below.
5o)
R3 ;DC
5o)
R3
Co""s Hu=
R3
(#ec /eter
Gas /eter
,HD
R3
WAN
DCC
R3
R3
;DC
Figure Variant 2b Alternative
The PLC bridge could connect to other RF devices within range this could be the Electricity meter or
IHD as shown for 2a above.
Variant 2c: Gas Meter Extra Radio
Under this variant the gas meter cannot obtain a reliable connection using the standard HAN RF hardware.
It is either not possible or practical to use a repeater or extender to connect the gas meter.
The variant makes use of a different radio typically at a different frequency, to establish a connection. It is
known that 433MHz or 169MHz radios could achieve connections, albeit with potential compromises on
data rates, that would not be possible with the anticipated 868MHz or 2.4GHz radios being considered for
the SMHAN.
An example of the type of radio module is discussed here: http://lnkd.in/HG285b - a 169MHz radio
supporting Wireless M-Bus and complying with prEN 13757-4:2011
The power, design and battery implications of a second radio for a gas meter would be critical
considerations.
Co""s Hu=
R3
(#ec /eter
Gas /eter
,HD
R3!
R3
WAN
DCC
R3
R3!
R3
Figure Variant 2c
Comms Hub would need to be capable of accommodating an additional radio
Suitably equipped gas meters (or external modules) need to be available, adding to the number of
meter variants
Standard SMHAN Radio in gas meters may be redundant
An approach that could be considered would be for the RF2 link to be achieved outside of the Meter and/or
Comms Hub, as shown below. This would result in no requirement for a HAN variant gas meter, but may
reduce the robustness of the RF2 link, even if this is battery operated and sealed. In the illustration, the
Box devices are acting as a bridge for the HAN RF network.
Co""s Hu=
R3
(#ec /eter
Gas /eter
,HD
R3
WAN
DCC
R3
5o)
R3! R3
5o)
R3! R3
R3
Figure Variant 2c Alternative
Variant 3: Gas Meter with No HAN
Under this variant the gas meter cannot obtain a reliable connection using the standard HAN RF hardware,
and the use of other variants is not appropriate. The gas meter still needs a WAN connection, so has its own
WAN hardware, or Comms Hub Lite. There is no in home provision of gas consumption information to
the IHD.
Co""s Hu=
R3
(#ec /eter
Gas /eter
,HD
R3
WAN
DCC
R3
R3 WAN
Figure Variant 3
Suitably equipped gas meters (or external modules) and commercial arrangements with DCC need to
be available
Gas consumption can be made available on IHD, but this is likely to be via the WAN connection to
the DCC, and then to the IHD via Comms Hub where it would be stored/mirrored
There are particular security provisions relating to the Comms Hub a gas meter fulfilling a
connection to the DCC independently of a Comms Hub would need to meet all of those requirements
HAN Radio in gas meters may be redundant if these are universal and standard
1/.&.( $ummary *" Implied Variants
The table shows the maximum possible number of variants for each type of device, and in one sense, shows
a worst case position
Type of Device Standard HAN Hardware Variants
Comms Hub RF RF+PLC, RF+RF2
Electricity Meter RF PLC, RF+PLC
Gas Meter RF RF+RF2, WAN
In Home Display RF PLC, RF+PLC
Extender RF RF+PLC
For the 5 types of device considered in this paper there are 14 variants from a basic assessment, with
more potentially being required to support dedicated wires and other challenging installations. This may not
be an exhaustive list of potential variants.
At the time of preparing this report, a number of key issues remain outstanding;
% Range of architectures and options, and a principle for variants
% Prevalence of premises where these variant approaches may be required, particularly for multi-
occupant buildings, remains an estimate and within that estimate, the variations (and therefore
possible HAN variants) are not known
% Practical suitability, and commercial availability, of tested and proven Wired HAN options to
provide a reliable alternative
16 The HAN WG cannot make clear recommendations on HAN variants beyond the need for further
design consideration of how to physically achieve the requirement for total SMHAN connectivity
with no compromise to robustness.
17 Particular testing on use of different approaches wired, mesh, 2
nd
wireless and the operational
and commercial issues arising from these should be considered for multi occupant buildings.
(6'( "A# *odularity
This section includes a summary of the HAN Working Groups position and recommendations on SMHAN
modularity.
There are several approaches to providing modularity for the SMHAN, two examples being:
(a) Full modularity applied to every SMHAN communications transceiver
This implies that every SMHAN-connected device would include internally a standardized physical
interface into which is plugged a field-replaceable module. This means that the SMHAN technology
can be selected for each installation by selecting the relevant modules. It also allows new
technologies may be added to existing installations, or existing technologies substituted, without
having to replace every Smart Metering System device.
(b) SMHAN modularity applied to the Comms Hub
This would involve a similar internal standardised physical interface to option (a) above, but only in
the Comms Hub. It would allow the same Comms Hub to support different SMHAN technologies.
If more than one interface was provided it would enable multiple technologies to be used
simultaneously on the same SMHAN. It would also mean that future changes to SMHAN
technology could be implemented without having to change the entire Comms Hub.
There is no formal Design Requirement that calls for modularity in the SMHAN. Nevertheless, there has
been much discussion of SMHAN modularity, especially within the HAN and Architecture Working Groups
and the wider Community of Technical Experts.
Stimulating this discussion is a widespread recognition that the pace of technology change in
communications systems is fast, in comparison to the 15 year design lifetime of SMHAN metering devices.
It can be expected that new and improved wireless , wired standards and technologies will emerge during
the lifetime of the Smart Metering System. There is also some uncertainty about the long-term situation
regarding congestion and interference in some frequency bands which are otherwise attractive for operating
the SMHAN. This raises an important question:
Should suppliers and equipment vendors invest more now in development and equipment costs to
build-in SMHAN modularity, in order to guard against potentially expensive SMHAN technology
change earlier than anticipated?
At present, through the use of assumptions and cost estimates, it would be possible to build convincing
economic cases supporting or opposing SMHAN modularity, particularly in the Comms Hub. A case could
be assembled that shows the cost of replacing more than a certain percentage of Comms Hubs within a
certain time to be more than the cost of modularity which avoids (or reduces the cost of) such replacement.
However, nobody can say for sure whether this percentage of Comms Hubs will need to be replaced, so the
case cannot be validated at this time.
A key barrier to any form of SMHAN modularity is the requirement to define and agree a standard interface
for the modules before design, manufacture and deployment can proceed. Whilst some candidates have
been suggested (e.g. CCLs UMI and USB) each would take time and money to develop, and to incorporate
into product designs and would require co-ordinated commitment by all energy suppliers and equipment
vendors. Industry has, so far, not been convinced that the benefits of modularity would outweigh the time,
effort and cost of seeking agreement and making it happen.
18 As a consequence of the above, the HAN Working Group recommends that modularity is not
mandated in the SMHAN elements of Smart Metering System Devices.
The following points are relevant to this recommendation:
The cost of Comms Hubs will be kept as low as possible in order to minimize the cost of
replacement, should a change in SMHAN technology be required in some or all premises in the
future.
Provision for different SMHAN standards at launch will be achieved by specifying a set of Comms
Hubs which support the desired combination of standards.
Comms Hub vendors may choose to achieve competitive product pricing by including modularity
within their products. Any design features required to achieve such prices (e.g. connectors or
selectively populated PCBs) remain within the control of each vendor and thus do not incur the cost
and time required for cross-programme standardisation.
Updated Comms Hubs may be developed later to include new SMHAN technologies or standards
that meet the SMHAN system requirements.
However, it should be noted that, in the absence of modularity, post-installation SMHAN issues
(such as changes to local radio or wired propagation or interference conditions) may require entire
Smart Metering Systems in some premises to be replaced before the end of their expected lifetime
with an alternative communications solution, in order to restore reliable SMHAN operation.
The above recommendation is based on currently available information. However, it may be re-visited by
industry at any time during the life of the Smart Metering System. It may be that industry will wish to
review its position in the future in the light of new information, for example:
If responses from SMHAN vendors to questions on long-term robustness of their solutions (e.g. in
the presence of increasing interference) suggest that even the best candidate technology available
today may within a few years degrade in performance in a significant proportion of premises, to the
point where replacement is necessary.
If operational experience with early SMHAN installations leads to an unacceptable number of
problems, where rectification costs would be significantly reduced by the ability to replace SMHAN
communications modules in some or all devices, rather than the entire devices.
(&'( ,onnection of .ther ,ustomer +evices
As mentioned in section Error: Reference source not found above, provision is made for connection of other
customer devices (e.g. Home Automation Systems) via an Approved Gateway SMHAN Device, as required
in HA.13. Such Devices may be produced by a variety of vendors and made available to customers via
retail channels. Provided they are Approved, and then Authenticated for connection to the customers
SMHAN, then they can gain access to allowed data on the SMHAN and instruct other SMHAN Devices to
carry out allowed actions.
A local consumer interface with the SMHAN (that connects the meters, comms hub and mandated IHD) is
required for;
% Data access (although this can also be achieved over the WAN)
% Home energy management systems (e.g. a Consumer HAN or CHAN)
% Smart appliances
There are a number of options to achieve this;
% Option A: A wireless Gateway between the SMHAN and Consumer HAN
Could be implemented by including a radio transceiver operating to the SMHAN standard (or
standards) in a device (e.g. an In-home Display), together with the appropriate firewall to protect
SMHAN security. This device would also include a Bridge to another wired or wireless standard
used by Home Automation Devices which the customer wishes to connect. This option implies that
Approved SMHAN Devices will need to be available for customers to buy. These will need to be
Type Approved, as for any SMHAN device. A number of Gateway SMHAN devices could be
connected to a single SMHAN.
% Option B: A physical port on the comms hub for the consumer to plug in a Consumer HAN dongle
Could be implemented by providing a customer-accessible physical port on the Comms Hub, to
which additional communications devices can be connected. In this case, the Firewall would be
included within the Comms Hub, increasing the security of the SMHAN. Note that such an
approach might not be applicable to outside locations due to the requirement for environmental
protection of the port. A decision on a common physical port standard and communications protocol
would need to be made. This port would also increase the cost of the Comms Hub, but devices
connected to it would not need to be Type Approved, as they are outside the SMHAN.
% Option C: Build Consumer HAN connectivity (e.g. Wi-Fi) into the Comms Hub
Technically similar to option A, but utilising a more appropriate transceiver within the Comms Hub.
WAN
SMHAN
Port 1
Gas Elec
Mandatory
IHD
DCC
rusted
hird Party
Authentication
Centre
!ire"all
!ire"all
Suppliers
WAN
Consu#er
HAN
Devices
Plug-in
Consumer HAN
Gateway
Wireless
bridge
$%pen&
Consu#er
Physical Port
Main
SMHAN Port 1
Co##s Hu'
Electronics
Co##s Hu'
Enclosure
Po"er
Supply
Mains
Input
Co##s Hu'
$Closed&
SMHAN (
WAN Ports
)US* optional+
SMHAN
Consu#er
HAN)s+
A
*
A * C
Consu#er HAN options
Wi!i
C WiFi
Consu#er
HAN)s+
Figure Customer HAN Connection Options
Option A appears to minimise design complications, so long as the security measures which are built-in to
the devices and the profile for an IHD are deemed adequate. Discussions within the group indicated that
there was a clear requirement for access control rules for the operation of such devices for Energy Services
Companies.
Gateway device functionality and hardware will not be required for all customers some may choose never
to add their devices to a consumer HAN (CHAN), or for their CHAN to connect to the SMHAN. For some,
the purchase of a device with multiple transceivers (wireless and wired or multiple wireless), such as an
appropriate internet router, would allow them to access the information and services on an SMHAN once the
Gateway Device has been authenticated to join the SMHAN.
19 The HAN WG did not express a collective preference for any option on Gateways, but have used (a)
as a working assumption.
(7'( "A# )pectrum .ptions
The HAN WG has inherited the assumption that radio will be the default technology for Smart Metering
Home Area Networks (SMHANs). Radio solutions are quick to install and offer great flexibility for future
expansion. However, in-building radio networks can be challenging to design and deploy, especially if they
need to work within many different types of building (as is the case with the GB housing stock) and for
many years (ideally 15 years or more for the SMHAN).
Wired alternatives will be available for SMHANs where radio propagation is difficult, for example due to
existing meter positions, buildings with high attenuation or interference from other networks. However,
wired networks can be expensive to install and upgrade, and are not without their own technical issues.
The HAN Working Group has identified a long list of candidate SMHAN wired and wireless technologies.
It has designed an evaluation process to support the selection of one or more of these for use in UK
SMHANs.
As part of the work of the HAN WG, with the support of the Technology Strategy Board and the Smart
Energy Special Interest Group, Astutim were asked to take an independent look at radio-related issues that
may impact the suitability of technologies for the UK SMHAN requirement. A brief initial study was
carried out, focusing on spectrum availability, potential interference and robustness, the results of which are
summarised below.
19.1.1 $);2- >adio $pe#trum $tudy >esults
The HAN WG Radio Spectrum Study surveyed existing and potential new frequency bands which could be
used for a GB SMHAN. It looked at both licensed and license-exempt spectrum, and included a dialogue
with Ofcom about future planning of both types of spectrum. The study looked at the suitability of each
band to meet the technical requirements of the GBs SMHANs. This included available bandwidth, and
suitability for supporting a modern spread-spectrum or frequency-hopping radio system. It also looked at
the susceptibility of each band to interference from other devices, both now and in the future.
The study concluded that there are four strong candidate frequency bands, each of which has the potential to
meet the minimum requirements. These bands, and their assessed position regarding co-channel and
adjacent channel interference, are summarised in the table below.
Nu"=e
r
5an- ;otentia# for Co4
channe# interference
;otentia# for A-8acent channe# interference
1 'urrent 808 );< band 1ow In#reasing due to new 800 );< band
& Possible new 830%830
and 91/%9&1 );< bands
Very low )edium ? e""e#t o" new 800 );< band
allo#ations needs to be assessed
( !.'T @1880 %1900 );<A 1ow $tati# ? !.'T devi#es should be resilient to
this
4 &.4 :;< I$) ;igh and in#reasing -ot a signi"i#ant issue #ompared with #o%
#hannel @in%bandA inter"eren#e
The 2.4 GHz ISM band (Number 4) is seen as one obvious choice for the SMHAN. However, its continuing
popularity for other applications, including Wi-Fi networks used increasingly for streaming video, mean that
even the techniques used by leading HAN technology providers to maintain performance in the face of
interference may be insufficient to guarantee operation in some locations within the projected 15 year
lifetime of the system (detailed co-existence testing in representative SMHAN environments is required to
confirm or deny any issues here). The possible new bands (870-876 and 915-921 MHz, Number 2) and
DECT (1880-1900 MHz, Number 3) are potentially attractive, but each would require time and investment
by industry before they could be used in a mass-deployment system, such as the UK SMHAN. This initial
study did not uncover evidence that would suggest a preference between Numbers 2 and 3.
In addition to the above four alternatives, it is possible that the programme could seek to acquire rights to
use spectrum that is owned by commercial organizations. This possibility has not been studied in detail
within the initial study.
In order to be considered as a candidate, any proposed SMHAN solution needs to demonstrate a proven
ability to meet the specified operational requirements in the presence of representative worst case
interference conditions. It is recommended that promoters of the candidate solutions should be invited to
submit evidence that their systems will operate reliably over the lifetime of the system. Promoters should
also be asked to define a series of tests that will demonstrate compliance of their solution in terms of data
throughput, error rate and latency in the presence of levels of interference that can be expected in their
chosen band within the 15 year system lifetime.
19.1.& The Bay +orward
Any decision on GB SMHAN radio technology will need to balance the risk of long-term reliability issues
(and potential costs) with the need to meet the system rollout timescale of smart meters installed in all GB
homes by the end of 2020. There may not be a system in production now which can meet both these
requirements. The figure below illustrates three alternative options which the Programme, or industry, could
adopt:
%ption 1
At least one e,istin- technolo-y
presents convincin- evidence that it
"ill 'e ro'ust lon-.ter#/
%ption 0
Evidence su--ests that an e,istin-
technolo-y "ill 'e satis1actory in the
#ediu# ter#2 'ut #ay 'e pro'le#atic
lon-.ter#/
Pro-ra##e evaluates alternative ne"
technolo-ies and selects one 1or
introduction later/ E,istin- technolo-y
re#ains operational "here installed/
%ption 3
Pro-ra##e decides to pro#ote and
1ast.trac4 a ne" technolo-y no"/
5on-.ter# solution 1ro# the
'e-innin- 'ut #ay delay start o1
rollout/ i#e
Figure SMHAN Radio System Options
Option 1 may be chosen if at least one solution emerges that meets all the agreed evaluation criteria and is
able to provide convincing evidence that it will be robust over the long-term for the great majority of
installations in the real-world GB SMHAN environment.
It is possible that the evidence presented fails to make a convincing case that any existing solution will be
sufficiently robust in the long-term. However, the evidence may be strong enough to make a case for at
least one existing solution working adequately in a proportion of premises, which can therefore be
prioritised for early installation. In this instance Option 2 can be chosen. This would enable rollout to begin
on schedule, whilst allowing time for manufacturers to deliver an improved solution that will be robust in
the long term in the great majority of GB homes.
If the evidence presented for existing solutions is weak and the Programme believes the risk of performance
problems in the medium term is high (even when early-install premises are selected with care) then it may
be that Option 3 is the only viable solution. The time taken to bring an alternative system to production may
result in some delay to the start of rollout, but this could be balanced by the reduction in risk of SMHAN
components failing in the field and needing to be replaced before end of life.
20 The HAN WG notes the concerns regarding operating frequency, long term reliability and cost, but
agreed that the main issue facing the Programme is having a commercially available and proven
solution to deliver economic connectivity to the majority of premises. Therefore operating frequency,
long term reliability and cost need to be considered alongside other considerations on the suitability
of an SMHAN.
-8'( "A# 1echnology ,hange
In selecting SMHAN solutions for use in GB smart metering it is intended that these solutions will continue
to work and be suitable for 15 years or more. It should be understood however that there is always a risk
that there will be a wish or need to change one or more technologies used in the SMHAN.
&0.1.1 >easons "or #hange
There are 2 main reasons for considering a change of technology in the SMHAN;
- Problems with original choice of SMHAN solution
- Compelling new technology becomes available in the market
These are explained in more detail below. The principles of the Radio System change figure in section
12.4.2 also apply to overall SMHAN solution options.
20.1.1.1 Problems with original choice of SMHAN solution
There are three main types of issues that could arise; commercial, technical and regulatory;
Commercial: e.g. SMHAN solution X was available from 3 vendors and all 3 vendors go out of
business within 10 years, making it difficult or impossible to continue to deploy new devices and
support existing devices in the field.
Technical: e.g. SMHAN solution Y no longer works well because other home products and services
using the same physical medium increase in usage so much that it renders that physical medium
completely congested and unavailable for SMHAN use.
Regulatory: e.g. New UK or EU regulations come in to either limit the usage of SMHAN solution Z
or allow new products and services that could limit the usefulness of that solution.

Note that all of these scenarios all attract some level of risk, and it is particularly difficult to judge the
likelihood of these risks materialising.
20.1.1.2 Compelling new technology becomes available in the market
There are a number of use cases and possibilities here;
(a) In the future some new radio or powerline technology may become available that fundamentally
changes the market either in terms of cost, propagation, bandwidth, power consumption or all of
these attributes.
(b) It may not be that existing deployments are deemed unsuitable, but the step change in functionality
may have a profound impact on the success of the smart metering programme either in terms of
financial return or consumer experience and behaviour, such that it is decided that all future
deployments should move to this new technology.
Perhaps GB smart metering deployments start in 2014 with SMHAN solution A, even though it is
recognised as less than perfect, however in parallel a programme is instigated to develop a new SMHAN
solution and standard, which will not be available and mature until 2016. Thus there would need to be a
plan to upgrade to the new SMHAN solution some time in the future.

&0.1.& Types o" Te#hnology 'hange
20.1.2.1 Physical Technological Change
Some technology changes require a physical change to products deployed in the field, e.g. swap out one
type of electric meter using SMHAN solution C for another meter that uses SMHAN solution D.
For example, if SMHAN devices are shipped with 2.4GHz radios supporting one SMHAN solution and it is
decided to introduce a new SMHAN solution that uses 1.9GHz radios, the existing 2.4GHz radios will
almost certainly not be able to support the new radio frequency, so they will have to be swapped out.
20.1.2.2 Changes to Technology involving software only
Some changes to the SMHAN solution may involve only an upgrade to firmware or software on existing
deployed devices. Such changes may still be fairly fundamental in nature and may have a large impact on
the SMHAN performance in different ways, but they do not necessarily require replacement of existing
hardware or products in the field.
For example, if there is some installed base of ZigBee Smart Energy 1.1 SMHAN solutions, some software-
only technology change use cases come to mind, e.g.;
% IP: There may in the future be a compelling reason to adopt Internet Protocols throughout the smart
metering system, including the SMHAN, and it may therefore be useful to upgrade to ZigBee Smart
Energy 2.0, which is IP-based, and which should run on deployed hardware, requiring only a
software upgrade.
% Coexi stence: e.g. if the 2.4GHz frequency becomes more congested and more difficult to work
with, one solution may be to implement a frequency hopping regime in software to spread the
communications across all available channels and improve robustness. Such a solution could be
implemented in software and existing deployed devices could be upgraded in the field.
&0.1.( !evelopment o" a new $);2- $olution / $tandard
One option that has been discussed is to choose a physical medium (probably a radio frequency) and
develop a new SMHAN solution specifically for use in GB smart metering deployments. There are pros and
cons to such an approach.
Pros
This new solution could be purpose designed for GB smart metering
The option of licensed bands could be looked at, eliminating any potential interference or
coexistence issues
It may be able to eliminate functional or performance gaps in existing solutions
Cons
It takes some time to develop a new solution, especially if it has to be an open standard, requiring
consensus from stakeholders, and it requires considerable investment in time/resources from those
stakeholders.
Existing solutions and standards, especially those that have been deployed in other markets, will
have developed a level of robustness and maturity that will need to be replicated in any new solution.
This takes time, effort and pilot deployments.
If the solution requires new silicon and is very specifically targeted to GB, will the market size be
such that it will be attractive to multiple silicon vendors to design and supply silicon for the market
at a cost competitive price?
Even if the new solution is to take an existing application or networking protocol/standard and apply
it to an existing physical medium, this also takes a lot of time and effort from stakeholders and
silicon/stack vendors. Bearing in mind that those with expertise in the application/networking
protocol may not have any commercial interest in making it work with a different physical medium
(which they may not have products for).
Who will invest time and money in this effort?
Anecdotal timescales for standards development;
ZigBee Alliance
ZigBee Smart Energy 1.0 Application Profile (starting with an existing proven physical medium and
an existing proven networking solution, adding a new application profile): started with an initial
meeting in December 2006 and was completed with spec complete and products certified in May
2008 18 months (product releases took another 3-6 months).
ZigBee 2007 (Pro) networking spec (starting with an existing proven physical medium and adding
functionality to an existing networking standard): Initial rough technical requirements document in
Summer 2006, completed (spec) and certified platforms in October 2007 (~16 months), with
products release in December 2007 (~18 months).
ZigBee Smart Energy 2.0 Application Profile and IP Stack (starting with an existing proven physical
medium, taking some existing networking and application protocols and modifying them, adding
some new protocols): Work started in January 2009. As of June 2011, work is ongoing and planned
to complete with certified products at the end of Q3 2012 (3.5 years +).
Some new standards (e.g. new radio frequencies/standards) may require the development of new radios or
plc transceivers, and even if a small number of initial implementations exist, it would be preferable for other
silicon vendors in the market to develop their own products to compete in the market and ensure cost
effectiveness of solutions and innovation. Development of an entirely new silicon product can take 2-3
years and 3m - 7m in development costs, an investment that would need to be covered by future sales of
silicon. For example, assuming a minimum of 3 vendors for RF or PLC chips for GB SMHAN devices,
some of those vendors would need to invest 2-3 years and 3m-7m developing solutions for less than 30
million unit sales over 5-8 years.
21 The HAN WG recommends that the content in this section is noted by the Programme and Industry
when considering the next steps for smart metering. It will be difficult, but not impossible, to change
HAN technology decisions once they have been established.
-('( ost /nstallation/Environmental ,onsiderations
The HAN WG, in discussion with the Difficult Meter Positions Working Group, have considered what
provisions might be made where there are changes in the environment for the operation of the SMHAN.
Examples offered of changes that could affect the efficient operation of an installed SMHAN include
building works, renovation, positioning of domestic items (furniture, white goods etc.). Specifically, putting
a large stainless steel fridge freezer next to the IHD could make it invisible to the SMHAN.
The types of challenges and post-installation issues should only be the same as those that might affect the
SMHAN prior to installation, as have been documented by the Difficult Meter Positions WG. The methods
used to address these issues will also largely be similar use of an alternative physical carrier, an extender
or other method of providing reliable connectivity.
The potential incidence rate of post-installation SMHAN connection issues is not known, and will be driven
as much by the selection/specification of SMHAN hardware as it will be by customer activity.
The group concluded that there may be an issue with the diagnosis of SMHAN connection problems after an
installation. Data items to provide diagnostic information on signal quality have been recommended by the
HAN WG. Monitoring these items, locally or remotely, would enable a Supplier to determine if the IHD, or
Gas Meter, were experiencing difficulties in maintaining a reliable SMHAN connection. In particular, the
ability for a Supplier to recognise a problem before it leads to a failure could reduce significantly the cost of
repair. Engaging the customer on the telephone, with the conversation supported by diagnostic information,
could allow some problems to be resolved without the need for a visit.
22 That Suppliers develop (collectively or individually) processes to diagnose SMHAN connection issues
after installation using the data items recommended by the group
23 That Suppliers use appropriate techniques to restore reliable SMHAN connection where post-
installation problems occur
-9'( :ired 1echnologies
The existing HAN Evaluation Criteria and anticipated Link Budget tests from the Difficult Meter Positions
WG largely focus on wireless HAN technologies. We expect PowerLine and wired HAN technologies to
provide contingency where use of radios is not practical or possible.
Note that other, dedicated, wired technologies are not covered by this document.
&(.1.1 'lassi"i#ation o" Powerline te#hnologies
PowerLine technologies use the electrical network to transmit information. They are generally referred to as
PLC technologies (Power Line Carrier).
The principle of PLC technologies consists in superimposing a high frequency and low amplitude
modulated signal on the 50Hz electrical signal. This additional high frequency signal contains the
information to be transmitted over the electrical network.
Figure - Principle of PLC technologies
It is possible to classify PLC technologies by the frequency band they are using for the carrier signal, as well
as on the type of modulation that is used.
&(.1.& +reCuen#y spe#trumD narrowband or broadband P1'
Based on frequency band criteria, there are two families of PLC technologies:
Broadband PLC uses spectrum from 500 kHz to 30 MHz (typically 1.6, or 2, to 30 MHz) or above
and is delivering high data rates (data-rate of tens of Mbps, announced up to 200 Mbps).
Narrowband PLC uses the band from 0 to 500 kHz, and is characterised by lower data rates (data
rates will be detailed later as they depend on the modulation type).
Some broadband suppliers are starting to look at frequencies above the 30MHz level, these are aimed at
ultra wide bandwidth applications (such as media streaming) and will not be considered by this paper.
In the narrowband spectrum, it is possible to differentiate technologies working on very low frequencies,
under 9 kHz, known as ripple control. Designed for one-way (sometimes two-way) very low data-rate
communications over the grid, they are widely used to send messages from a substation to remote
downstream appliances (e.g. meters or street lights). Examples of technologies are TFCM over the French
grid, and Twacs offered by the company ACLARA (bidirectional). Their very low frequency enables very
good and reliable propagation range. However, being used for very simple communications and having a
very low data-rate, they are excluded from the scope of our HAN Wired options.
In Europe, the only standard in force for narrowband PLC is the EN50065-1. This standard proposes a
subdivision of the narrowband spectrum into 4 frequency bands. It also defines for each band maximum
levels of emission and the maximum perturbation levels (conducted and radiated) in link with CISPR22
(EN50022). These bands are:
Cenelec A : 3-95kHz
Cenelec B : 95-125 kHz
Cenelec C : 125-140 kHz
Cenelec D : 140-148.5 kHz
The 150-500 kHz band is not usable because of AM broadcasting.
While the CENELEC B, C and D bands can be used for any types of applications, the CENELEC A band is
dedicated to utilities applications. The latest version of EN50065-1 standard states:
Band 3 kHz up to 95 kHz
Frequencies in this band shall only be used for applications for monitoring or controlling the low;voltage
distribution networ$4 including energy usage of connected equipment and premises'
#.1E A typical example of an application in this band would be metering communications'
Examples of technologies working on the Cenelec A band include: PLC technologies used by ERDF in
France for metering (S-FSK and G3 experimentations), Meters & More technology of Enel in Italy,
Lonworks used for building automation, Prime driven by Iberdrola in Spain. Note that PLC G3 could as
well be used on other frequency bands: other Cenelec bands in Europe, FCC in the USA, and ARIB (up to
500 kHz) in Japan. Most of these technologies have initially targeted grid applications; however, they could
very well be appropriate for in-home applications.
An important majority of broadband PLC technologies are operating in the 1.6 to 30 MHz band (for
example BT Vision products installed in GB homes, the forthcoming rollout of the YouView streamed TV
service is expected to vastly increase the number of PowerLine deployments. It is expected that forthcoming
products will use 2-50 MHz or even 2-100 MHz frequency bands. The frequencies from 500 kHz to 1.6
MHz are not used in practice currently.
On the broadband spectrum, there is no standard in force for the maximum transmitter output levels.
The main technologies on the market for broadband PLC are: Home Plug AV, HD-PLC of Panasonic
(Japan), and former DS2 recently bought by Marvell.
The main technologies for narrowband and broadband are summarised in Figure .
Figure Narrowband and Broadband techniques
&(.1.( P1' )odulation te#hniCues
Another important characteristic of a PLC solution is its modulation technology. It is possible to distinguish
3 generations of modulations that apply mainly to narrowband PLC technologies. These are summarized
below and shown in Figure 3. The third of these also applies to broadband technologies.
These modulations are:
1st generation: based on mono carrier modulation. This is the oldest and simplest modulation to
use. It uses a single frequency and is thus very susceptible to perturbations that may affect that
particular frequency. It is widely used by narrowband products developed by utilities or for energy
services products. The modulation can be done on the amplitude, the frequency or the phase.
o Amplitude modulation is not much used (amplitude information is not easy to decode in
harsh power line environments, mainly because of the varying attenuation).
o Frequency modulation is used by ENEL in Italy with the Meters & More solution (FSK
modulation) and EDF in France with the PLAN Protocol (S-FSK modulation).
o Phase modulation is used by Lonworks (B-PSK modulation).
Typical data rates for these technologies are 1200 to 4800 bit/s.
2nd generation: based on spread spectrum modulation (like DSSS, FHSS, etc.). 2nd generation
technologies provide more robustness than 1st generation whereas no real improvements can be
noticed on typical data rates. There are none, or very few, products or projects currently using
second generation PLC over narrowband spectrum, despite an important development project by
Endesa some years ago.
3rd generation: based on multi carriers modulation (OFDM - orthogonal frequency division
multiplexing). Outside of the PLC world, this technology is used for ADSL, Digital TV, Wi-Fi;
Wimax, etc. The principle of OFDM consists in sending the information over a large number of
frequency carriers within the available spectrum, thus providing a high robustness to impulsive
noise.
o As mentioned before, OFDM modulation is used today for most of the broadband PLC
products. This form of modulation is also used for Wi-Fi, Wimax, Digital TV, etc.
o For narrowband PLC, ODFM solutions are in development. Once complete, these systems
should reach higher data rates and deliver more robustness thanks to a better use of the
frequency band than for 1st and 2
nd
generation PLC technologies. The two main narrowband
solutions using OFDM are Prime and G3.
Expected data rates for narrowband OFDM products:
PRIME announced up to 128 kbps ,
G3 announced up to 35kbps on Cenelec A band and up to 200kbps on full FCC band.
up to 35kbps for G3 announced G3 announced up to 35 kbps on CENELEC A band and up
to 200 kbps on full FCC band)
Figure Classification of modulation technologies for narrowband PLC
Broadband technologies typically use various types of OFDM modulation scheme. Figure 4 below shows
how these sit with respect to the first and second generation schemes which are typically used for
narrowband systems.
complexity
robustness
2
nd
generation
3rd generation
1st generation
Modulation technologies
Figure - Modulation types & generations
Here are 2 examples of PLC profiles, the ENEL Meters & More and the G3 PLC.
Figure - Meters & More PLC Profile
&(.1.4
Figure - G3 PLC Profile
&(.1./ 'onstraints o" P1' solutions
The main issues that a HAN transmission signal can face are the following:
1. Attenuation of the signal due to the environmental conditions
2. Noise (permanent or impulsive)
3. Interference with other signals
&(.1.0 $ignal attenuation
When studying wireless solutions, the attenuation is caused by:
o the distance between transmitter and receiver
o all the obstacles such as walls, doors, etc. that can be characterised by their thickness and
composition
When studying wired PLC solutions, the attenuation is cause by:
o the length of the electric cabling between transmitter and receiver (note: in UK housing the
actual distance a signal travels may be several times the physical distance between two
PowerLine units due to the ring main architecture employed for circuitry)
o the number (or density) of derivations
o the connected load (direct impact on the networks impedance)
o a change of cable type (underground to aerial, section, type of neutral cable, etc. applies to
grid, not in-home)
o transformers (G3 PLC developed by ERDF is able to pass low-voltage / medium voltage
transformers which in average have an attenuation of 60dB on Cenelec A applies to grid,
not in-home)
o the number of ring mains the signal traverses. i.e. the number of consumer units the signal
passes through between PowerLine endpoints
These parameters were primarily identified by EDF when working over the grid, and most are also
applicable to a home environment, though it should be noted that the attenuation figures will differ for home
systems.
&(.1.3 ;ome Biring Topology
There is no guarantee that two sockets which are physically close together will actually be on the same ring
main or connected by only centimetres of cable; however, in the majority of UK housing stock, this will be
the case if the sockets are in the same room. It is unusual (though not rare) to find sockets in the same room
to be on different rings or to be wired via an unexpected route. [It may be worth noting that this problem is,
however, very usual in office buildings and other commercial/industrial premises, though this falls outside
the current scope.] While it may be possible to make a sensible guess about the topology of the wiring
within a room, estimates about the run length of the unseen cabling are very difficult to make.
Wherever the Powerline signal needs to cross a consumer unit there is an associated signal loss; this is
further compounded in properties with extensions where multiple consumer units have been installed.
Additionally poor quality wiring and/or sockets as well as ageing wiring can also lead to signal degradation.
&(.1.8 -oise
As for Wireless solutions, PLC can be affected by noise on the mains wiring , typically introduced by
connected appliances.
Noise can affect all, or a part, of the PLC signal; the amount over time depending on the type and number of
appliances that are active. Noise can be:
Continuous (motors such as are found in fridges, washing machines, hand held tools etc., generate a
continuous noise whenever they are operating)
Impulsive (mobile phone chargers with switch mode power supplies, automatic or manual switching
on and off appliances, heaters, etc. generate spikes or impulses of noise when they are switched on
or off)
Characteristics of noise in GB homes are not known, and while some papers try to model noise with
statistical approaches, there is no real consensus within the PLC community. It is extremely difficult to
model what the noise level in a typical home looks like as it is entirely dependent on the electrical devices
which are active at any given time. Not only will no two homes look the same, but one home may look
different from one day (or even minute) to the next.
To cope with noise, the solution at the physical level is to choose an efficient modulation scheme, by
implementing strategies to measure the link quality (channel estimation techniques) to enable modulation
scheme adaptation and signal emission adjustment and change the signal emission frequency (within
regulatory limits).
Well documented interferers of Broadband PowerLine devices include switched mode power supplies (such
as are used in mobile phone chargers), transformers for lighting units, low power CFL bulbs, dimmer
switches for lighting, surge protectors and handheld motor-based devices such as kitchen equipment and hair
dryers. Some of these interferers are inevitably more transient than others. Unlike, for example, streaming
video, the SMHAN operates at a relatively low data rate and messages can be re-transmitted if a first
attempt fails. So, a PLC system suitable for the SMHAN will be more tolerant of impulsive than continuous
noise, where it can simply try again if a message is affected by an impulse of noise at the first attempt.
&(.1.9 Inter"eren#e
Interference with other signals is also an issue for PLC solutions. There is potential for interference when
two different technologies share the same frequency band and do not have coexistence strategies.
On the broadband spectrum, there is no restriction on the use of the frequency, and there are already
large numbers of products which utilise these frequencies in use in GB homes. Most of them are not
only incompatible, but actively interfere with one another as they are seen only as unintelligible
noise by the competing PowerLine units. However, products based on standards from the ITU
(G.hn) and IEEE (P1901) standards bodies will become commercially available as of 2012 and these
have co-existence capabilities built into them. Crucially, they will co-exist only with solutions based
on another of the new standards. However, current solutions will continue to be in use in GB homes
for a long time. Legacy devices would be a major problem if the smart metering system were to use
a broadband PLC solution for the HAN.
Another notable user of the broadband spectrum is the amateur radio community (Hams). In
existing UK roll-outs of Broadband PowerLine there have been a limited number of instances where
PowerLine installs have interfered with Ham Radio. These instances have been small in number
(accounting for far fewer than 0.01% of deployments). The providers who deployed the PowerLine
have addressed the situation either by supplying new Powerline adapters which avoid the relevant
frequency (a process known as notching) or in extreme cases only replacing the PowerLine
network with an ISP-installed secondary home network solution.
More recently, ADSL2+ has been rolled-out as a new generation of broadband connection. This
utilises frequencies between 1.1MHz and 2.2MHz, which overlaps with the range used by
Broadband PowerLine (which starts at 1.6 or 2MHz) and some small instances of radiated
interference have been noted by telecommunications operators which has led to degradation of the
consumers broadband speeds. This has been limited to date due to the relatively small footprint of
both Broadband PowerLine and ADSL2+ enabled exchanges. Should Powerline be used more
widely, in conjunction with a completed roll-out of ADSL2+, the number of interference issues can
be expected to increase significantly. There may also be an issue with BTs proposed rollout of
fibre-to-the-cabinet (FTTC) services, which rely on VDSL for the link into customer premises.
On the narrowband spectrum, as seen earlier, the CENELEC A band guaranties a use for utilities in
Europe. This prevents any home product from using these frequencies and if products not provided
by utilities do so, they are not respecting the regulation in force. Other bands B, C and D, could be
used as well, however, the frequencies are usable by any other device.
Examples of products working on these bands are KNX and Echelon LONWORKS solutions, on the
Cenelec C band. However CENELEC C defines a coexistence mechanism CSMA/CA access
mechanism and the use of a 132.5 kHz carrier during transmission is mandatory.
In addition to the ADSL2+ overlap highlighted above, narrowband Powerline standards over the
CENELEC bands cross part of both of the ADSL (25.8KHz-1.1MHz) and the ADSL2+ bands .
Footprint of Broadband products in GB:
There are no definitive estimates of the footprint of Broadband PowerLine usage in GB homes. Information
is difficult to obtain from the various participants: the telecommunications operators are sparing with their
information, and the retail vendors are known to exaggerate their footprints as it serves their commercial
purpose. It seems reasonable to assume that the two main technologies in the UK have each shipped to
500k-1M homes. How many are actually in use is not known. Where they are in use, it would be safe to
assume that these two technology groups do not overlap.
&(.1.10 *ver#oming environmental #onstraints
23.1.10.1 Recommendations for a solution
To overcome the obstacles listed above, recommendations would be:
Generally, to work on lower frequencies to increase range: narrowband PLC should reach longer
distances than broadband, providing that the lower data rate meets the requirements.
Avoid frequency bands where existing sources of interference are present. This would exclude the
use of a broadband PLC solution where a customer already has broadband PLC products (BT vision
for example). There, only narrowband solutions remain, and it is important to check that data rates
they offer can meet GB SMHAN requirements.
Choose an efficient modulation: PLC using an OFDM modulation has reasonable data rates and is
better designed to overcome noise or perturbations, having the ability to adapt its utilisation of the
frequency spectrum.
It is important to consider multi-hop topologies (i.e. topologies where home devices would not be in
direct sight of the PLC coordinator). This should not be a big issue since PLC technologies usually
include repetition or routing mechanisms.
23.1.10.2 Understanding GB homes constraints
To evaluate PLC technologies for the SMHAN and validate a choice, there is a need to understand which
levels of constraint apply to GB homes. This could be achieved through on-site measurements (as it is
currently done for wireless solutions by the Difficult Meter Position WG).
Basically, measuring attenuation and noise levels in a homes electrical wiring could be achieved using a
signal generator (typically a GBF) injected into the home network through a specific coupling unit. The
received signal could be measured using a spectrum analyser.
Given the variety of approaches to wiring houses, particularly where there have been conversions,
extensions, or refurbishments, and variation of consumer equipment which may create noise or interference,
it is not possible to infer that a property type based on criteria such as age, construction type, or area, has a
particular set of characteristics in terms of attenuation or noise. However, a measurement campaign in a
reasonable set of houses could provide broad indications of field constraints and support an evaluation
process for a GB wired SMHAN solution.
&(.1.11 >e#ommendations
The HAN WG recommends that a number of activities are considered;
24 The SMHAN Evaluation Criteria & Tests in the ESoDR appendix should be reviewed and updated
by subject matter experts to include the necessary elements to cover both dedicated and shared (i.e.
PowerLine) wired options.
25 A significant test of the available PowerLine solutions should be undertaken. Given the range of
possible technologies, the diversity of housing stock and the multiple sources of interference, this has
not been possible within the time available to the HAN Working Group. A realistic approach would
be to measure attenuation and noise on a limited sample of GB houses in order to first estimate the
house characteristics and interference levels that can be expected, and any co-existence problems
that could occur.
26 Further effort should be made to take into account the findings from PLC tests and installations
which have been undertaken by European utilities or telecoms operators. It should be noted that the
differing wiring regulations across the EC may limit the usefulness of such information in GB, and
that the requirements and use cases may be significantly different from GB.
27 A more detailed understanding should be formed of the issues relating to broadband
communications services (ADSL2+ and VDSL) suffering interference from and to both Narrowband
and Broadband PowerLine technologies.
28 Work with the relevant European bodies (CEN, CENELEC, ETSI) to set and impose criteria on the
standards bodies who are developing next-generation standards (ITU, IEEE) such that those new
standards make allowance for the needs of communications technologies used in European smart
metering deployments, particularly in a HAN context.
-&'( .ther <eneral oints of #ote
A number of general topics were discussed at the HAN WG, and are worthy of note here.
&8.1.1 .le#tromagneti# $ensitivity
The HAN WG considered the Electromagnetic Sensitivity (EMS) implications of a recommendation to
implement the use of wireless technology to support smart metering. It is aware of the ongoing concerns in
this area, but noted that;
% There are specific provisions within the ESoDR for compliance with ICNIRP requirements in
emissions
% All communications products put on sale within EU are required to comply with the Electromagnetic
Compatibility Directive
% The recommended Evaluation Criteria include good neighbour and good citizen emissions testing
and evaluation
% Generally, all wireless technologies being considered were specifically very low power as they need
to support battery powered gas meters
Further work could be done in this area if there is a decision to use specific technologies, but at this stage,
the HAN WG has proposed no additional activities.
&8.1.& )ar4et )aturity
The HAN WG noted throughout, and had this reinforced by the evaluation exercise, that the HAN is a
relatively new market. There are mature solutions available, but these have tended to be developed for other
applications (home automation, automated meter reading, etc.) and are not necessarily a good fit for smart
metering. For both wired and wireless solutions there is a preponderance of new and start up technology
and whilst some of it looks quite interesting and potentially suitable for use in an SMHAN context, if it is
not available to test, or will not be available to test in the next six months it cannot be viewed as a realistic
option at this stage.
Between the new and the old, there are a number of leading technology options. The HAN WG anticipates
that the HAN market will develop into a natural monopoly or duopoly in the same way that Wi-Fi and
Bluetooth have come to dominate their particular markets. There are some barriers to this different
construction materials in different markets, different utility structures and requirements but the common
requirement remains low cost, low power, reliable wireless equipment.
Any GB activity will contribute to developing the maturity of HAN technologies, as our deployment will
initially be the largest in the world specifying a relatively sophisticated and open HAN.
&8.1.( !edi#ated Bire $olutions
The HAN WG has acknowledged that a minority of sites or consumers may require a dedicated wired
approach to achieve connectivity between SMHAN Devices. The group has not undertaken any specific
activity in this area, as it is likely to be installation bespoke, and within the gift of discussions between
consumers and Suppliers to determine the most acceptable approach for each case.
The group considered options such as Ethernet cabling, Plastic Optic Fibre cabling or twisted pair cabling. It
did not consider how to address physical connection to devices. All dedicated wired options should be
capable of upper layer interoperability with Wireless or Wired SMHAN solution options.
Further work could be undertaken to improve the potential interoperability of any dedicated wiring to be
used for SMHAN connections.
&8.1.4 Pro#ess :overnan#e "or ;2- +irmware
The HAN WG was concerned that the ability to support Over The Air upgrades of HAN solutions was not
accompanied by some view of rules and governance. Without some controls, it could present a significant
challenge to interoperability unless the version of a HAN technology is known.
&8.1./ .le#tromagneti# 'ompatibility = $weda# Issue with Powerline
The HAN WG reviewed and noted the EMCIA report on Electromagnetic compatibility, and the particular
issues that could accrue for use of powerline solutions. The group further noted the issue raised by the
Swedish standards body Swedac with regard to EMC and electricity meters in the 3-150KHz range.
There are proposals to review and update the standards on Emissions in this range.
&8.1.0 $e#urity 'onsiderations
Whilst the group has been supported by security representatives, it has not been possible, whilst HAN
technologies and issues are being identified, and security principles and requirements agreed, to do detailed
assessment work on the suitability of the security of technologies or the requirements or vice versa. The
HAN WG noted and endorsed the work of the Application Layer Working Group on HAN Application
Layers and the security requirements, and also a lack of knowledge/material on security and wired HAN
options.
29 The HAN WG recommends that any Business Processes for Firmware and Over The Air upgrades of
HAN take note of the version control and governance concerns
30 The Programme (and industry) should monitor developments on the Electromagnetic Compatibility
issues, particularly as wired technologies within this frequency range could be considered for the
SMHAN
31 Further detailed work on HAN technology security wired and wireless is necessary once the
security requirements, and the architectural possibilities, are clearer.
$! HAN (va#uation Criteria
The HAN WG has developed the draft Evaluation Criteria proposed at the culmination of the ERA Local
Communications Development work. The Criteria have been revised to reflect the Prospectus, the ESoDR
and the development of the market. Tests for paper and bench/laboratory have been defined. The criteria
have been updated to address the anticipated requirement for wired HAN technologies.
Subjecting technologies to these Evaluation Criteria will allow the Programme, Industry, Manufacturer or
any procuring party to understand if those technologies are fit for purpose to use as an SMHAN in GB.
The proposed final Evaluation Criteria, with paper and laboratory tests, are attached as an appendix to this
report, and proposed as an enduring appendix to the ESoDR.
33 The present set of Evaluation Criteria remain relatively sunny day assessments. A number of rainy
day criteria could be developed to cover difficult premises, known interferers or challenging
circumstances.
$ Confor"ance 2estin0 of Direct#% Connecte- */HAN Devices
Devices to be connected to the SMHAN are termed Approved Devices (see section 8.1). The
Interoperability Testing Working Group (IOTWG) has considered the requirement for interoperability
between Smart Metering System devices and has recommended that interoperability testing be undertaken
by independent commercial test houses. All devices to be connected to the SMHAN will be required to pass
a set of interoperability tests as recommended by the IOTWG.
In addition to interoperability tests, Approved SMHAN Devices also need to be shown to conform to the
individual requirements of the base standard applicable to the SMHAN. This is usually referred to as
Conformance Testing. Typically this consists of two steps:
Pre-conformance Testing
Conformance Testing
Pre-conformance Testing helps a manufacturer to ensure that a product is ready for submitting for the full set
of tests that are required to show conformance. Conformance Testing is a comprehensive, documented and
audited process designed to ensure that all devices offered for sale pass a minimum set of requirements
needed to operate safely and effectively according to the specifications laid down.
Conformance Testing needs to cover issues applicable to any electrical product, such as electrical safety and
EMC performance. In the case of SMHAN devices these requirements will be satisfied by passing tests to
the relevant European standards that will lead to the application of a CE mark. In addition, devices intended
for direct connection to the SMHAN will need to pass tests specific to the requirements of the GB SMHAN.
We refer to this process as Type Approval. Devices passing these tests are deemed to be Type Approved,
which may be evidenced by the application of an appropriate Mark.
There are several approaches to implementing a Type Approval system. Two options that may be applicable
to SMHAN devices are:
Test House Certification
Self Certification
(a) Test House Certification
This involves production samples of each product being submitted to an approved independent test house
for testing against a series of specifications defined by the Programme. The tests are designed to ensure that
any device that passes them all will be fit for purpose, in this case as a device suitable for direct connection
to GB SMHANs. They will include an assessment of technical (RF or wired) performance in terms of
operating range, data throughput, interference to/from other devices and error rate.
There will be a cost involved in carrying out the tests and in maintaining and policing the system.
Test House Certification can be strictly controlled and provides the highest level of confidence that devices
will work properly on the SMHAN, will not cause disruption to the operation of the SMHAN and will not
compromise the security of the Smart Metering System or its data.
Devices passing the tests will be permitted to have a recognisable sticker or Mark applied to them. The
device manufacturer will be issued with appropriate security codes and/or procedures which will allow the
devices to be Authenticated and attached to SMHANs. Consumers will be able to identify Approved
devices via their Mark, and will be able to buy with confidence that these devices will work on their
SMHANs.
(b) Self Certification
Self Certification is a process whereby the device manufacturer or distributer undertakes its own testing
against a set of tests specified by the Programme. If a product passes the tests then it may have the
appropriate Mark applied to it.
Self Certification can include the same set of tests and pass/fail criteria as Test House Certification, but
responsibility for compliance rests with the manufacturer carrying out the tests, not an independent test
house. As a result, costs are lower (and are usually borne by the manufacturer) but there is a reduced level of
confidence that products made available for sale have actually passed all the specified tests. Reputable
manufacturers will diligently design and test their products and only apply the Mark if the product passes.
But in consumer product markets not all manufacturers operate to the same high standards.
A process including the approval of Self Certification systems can be designed to minimise the chance of
errors in testing devices. But the lack of separation between the organisation doing the testing and the one
attempting to get the product approved means that there is always a risk that commercial pressures will
affect the integrity of the testing in some cases.
Additional Conformance Protection for SMHAN Devices
In the case of the GB SMHAN there is an additional layer of protection applying to both Type Approval and
Self Certification in that devices found to cause a problem can have their Authentication permission
withdrawn, preventing them from being connected to SMHANs. This could include disconnecting them if
they have already been connected by turning them into Detached SMHAN Devices (see section 8.1).
However, this would only be likely to happen after devices had been put on the market and found to cause
problems. It would require someone to detect a problem and trace it to a particular product. If the problem
involved a security issue then the integrity of SMHANs or their data could be compromised before the
devices concerned can be removed from SMHANs. Poor PR could result if significant numbers of devices
have been purchased by consumers before a problem is identified, and these devices subsequently cause
problems or are disconnected through having their security permission withdrawn.
Reaching a Decision
The Programme will need to decide which of the above approaches (or another approach) to adopt for
Conformance Testing of devices to be connected to the SMHAN. This decision will need to be based on an
assessment of at least the following criteria:
Degree of control over SMHAN devices required by the Programme
Depth of security that is provided to protect against Authorised devices carrying out unauthorised
actions
Risk that a poorly-designed product could compromise the security or operation of the Smart
Metering System
Sensitivity to costs involved in testing SMHAN products
Potential impact on consumers of problem devices being disconnected from SMHANs
In reaching a decision it should be noted that it is difficult to move to Test House Certification from a Self
Certification regime, whilst it is not so difficult to move the other way.
The HAN WG has considered the options for Conformance Testing and whether sufficient information is
available to make a firm recommendation of the appropriate approach to be taken for devices to be directly
connected to the SMHAN.
A safe approach would be to begin with Test House Certification whilst retaining an option to move later to
Self Certification once real-world experience is built-up through system rollout.
Based on the information currently available the WG does not feel that either Test House Certification or
Self Certification can be rejected as a valid approach. Each has the potential to meet the requirement for
Conformance to an SMHAN specification, provided that it is implemented and policed effectively.
Once it becomes clear which technology or technologies will be selected for the SMHAN then an evaluation
against the above criteria should enable an appropriate choice of method to be made.
35 The HAN WG recommends that any subsequent Programme activity on Interoperability Testing take
account of the options for HAN Conformance testing as described in this document
Appen-i) A 4 HAN (va#uation ()ercise
During May and June 2011, following an exercise by the group to identify and document potential HAN
solution technologies, a request for information in the form of a questionnaire was sent to over 20
representatives of individual technologies.
The intention of the exercise was to test the suitability of the Evaluation Criteria and the questions used to
assess compliance with these criteria. It also served to provide information on individual solutions, and to
establish working relationships between the Programme and technology providers.
All of the materials of the exercise questions, contacts, responses & summary of answers are published
on the HAN WG site at this page: https://sites.google.com/site/smdghanwg/evaluation-exercise
The evaluation criteria in the appendix below, and the proposed questions, have been amended as a result of
this exercise.
The HAN WG was pleased to note that all the perceived leading options for wireless HAN options
responded to the questionnaire, albeit with some issues on completeness or timeliness. Other points of note:
% No responses were received from wired solutions
% Most, but not all, technologies provided answers that highlighted one or more key gaps in their
current offerings when reviewed against the SMHAN requirements.
% These gaps were of concern to the group as they appeared to be mainly functional rather than
commercial. It might be possible to resolve some of these gaps through discussion and clarification.
The illustration below reflects the position of the group on the Evaluation Exercise.
(va#uation
()ercise Review
No *uita=#e 2echno#o0ies
4 re7uire"ents9criteria too hi0h9too har-
4 ti"e to reach re7uire- #eve# is unaccepta=#e
or un#i1e#%
/an% *uita=#e 2echno#o0ies
4 Re7uire"ents & Criteria are too 0enera#9too
eas%
4 Dots of potentia# HAN choices cou#- resu#t in
confusin0 options for Custo"ers an-
*upp#iers
*o"e *uita=#e 2echno#o0ies
4 Re7uire"ents 0enera##% suita=#e
4 Docu"ent an% 0aps or issues
4 :n-erstan- potentia# "ar1et HAN
techno#o0ies to-a%9future
4 Reco""en- process for -e#iverin0
certification
rogramme to revise requirements to ma$e
them accessible to existing solutions
"A# :< 5ecommends certification to ensure
solutions are capable of meeting requirements
rogramme to revise requirements to narrow
options
"A# :< 5ecommends a selection activity to
reduce number of options
rogramme to address any gaps or issues in
requirements/criteria
+epending on number/type of technologies
deemed suitable4 and where the issues are=
; "A# :< 5ecommends a selection activity to
reduce number of options
; "A# :< 5ecommends certification to
ensure solutions are capable of meeting
requirements
; "A# :< 5ecommends one or two options
for relevant hysical variants >that can support
recommended App ?ayer@
Next Steps
As a result of reviewing the initial content from the exercise, the group notes that the position is as
anticipated Some Suitable Technologies. Detail of the findings of the group can be found at the link
provided above.
More importantly, as noted above, the group concluded that the mechanism of the evaluation criteria, and
associated tests, could be an effective tool for either the specification of fit for purpose HANs, or for
selection of HANs.
Appen-i) 5 4 HAN 2estin0 ()ercise Report
In June 2011, the HAN WG, with the support of the Smart Energy Special Interest Group (SESIG) of the
Technology Strategy Board, undertook some laboratory testing of existing HAN technologies.
Due to the restricted time and funding available, the tests were fairly simple, and limited to wireless options
only. 20 technologies were invited to provide samples for testing, but only 4 were able to participate, mainly
due to time pressures. The four technologies participating were Z Wave, ZigBee @ 2.4GHz, KNX and
EnOcean.
The tests carried out were;
% Basic Interoperability can the boards see and connect to each other
% Power Consumption for peak activity and for dormant operation
% Path Loss/Attenuation to help determine the potential range of the radios
% Immunity to interference how do the radios cope with known sources of interference
% Transmitter Performance does the radio operate as specified with regard to emissions
Not all of the tests were possible for all of the boards provided as some samples did not have the appropriate
documentation.
Key lessons learnt from this exercise;
% Time, funding and planning is fundamental this testing is new and fairly unique. The rigours
applied to some standards and practices may not be directly applicable to HAN technologies
% It might be necessary to divide the testing between specialist laboratories
% Resource from the group (Programme/Industry etc.) commissioning the testing needs to be on hand
to advise the technology providers and the test facilities where questions arise
% Products for testing, in the form of development boards or otherwise, were not generally available
for the technologies we contacted only a couple of technologies were able to respond with ready
to go equipment. It should be noted that the timescale for this round of testing was extremely tight.
The group concluded that the requirements for further testing should be;
% To generate a fully detailed test specification for each test, to ensure sample providers and test house
know precisely what tests will be carried out and how they will be performed:
o each test should be designed to confirm one or more key SMHAN performance criteria, and
to allow absolute and relative performance of devices to be assessed
o test specifications should include specific details of device configuration (e.g. profile) to be
used
o tests should include 'over the air' measurements using representative interference/multipath
environments
% Allow more time for discussions with sample suppliers and test house, to ensure samples provided
are:
o representative of devices that will be deployed in GB SMHANs
o capable of performing the tests required
o fully documented
% Provide adequate resources for sample sourcing, test specification preparation, test house
interactions, testing and report writing.
% Tests should deliver results that are easily understood by non technical people if at all possible. For
example, if it is possible to work on real product messages rather than test packets on a radio, then
this is preferable..
% Tests should ideally be carried out using real end products, except where the manipulation of the
device required to perform that test makes this practically difficult.
% Vendors of hardware should be available (and allowed to be available) to support the tests to
ensure that results are not affected by lack of knowledge of the technology or the hardware, or
documentation errors.
o However, vendors of hardware should NOT be allowed to perform the tests themselves or
change results obtained by the independent test house.
% Wired testing of over-the-air performance should only be used in parallel with real radio tests, to
establish a base line or theoretical ideal.
% Tests performed on physical radio only should ideally be complimented by tests performed using a
full application and network st ack.
Summary of Results from Initial Testing
Test Technology A Technology B Technology C Technology D
Basic
Interoperability
Not Tested Not Tested Not Proven Not Tested
Current
Consumption
3
Dormant: 43mA
Active: 43mA
Dormant: 0.5mA
4
Active: 0.7mA to
31mA
Dormant: 8.8 to
11.2mA
Active: 16.6 to
43.8mA
Dormant: 29.6mA
Active: 31.5mA
Power
Consumption -
Dormant
Controller (230
VAC): 340 mW
Device (230 VAC):
1.26 W
Controller (230
VAC): 71 mW
Device (6.0 VDC):
not measurable
(3.25 VDC): 36.5
mW
(5.0 VDC): 44.5
mW
(9.0 VDC): 268
mW
, 's most of the samples were provided in the form of Development -oards# the current and power consumption figures are not
necessarily reflective of final production e"uipment
. /ingle sample only
Power
Consumption
Active
Controller (230
VAC): 341 mW
Device (230 VAC):
1.26 W
Controller (230
VAC): 194 mW
Device (6.0 VDC):
4.3 mW / 188 mW
(2 samples)
(3.25 VDC): 138
mW
(5.0 VDC): 82.9
mW
(9.0 VDC): 284
mW
Path Loss - Packet
Error Rate
Not possible Good
See Packet Error
Graph
Good
See Packet Error
Graph
Good
See Packet Error
Graph
Path Loss Link
Failure Level
Not possible -102.7dBm -96.6dBm -101.6dBm
Immunity to
Interference
(Wanted/Unwanted
Ratio In Band)
Not possible Poor
-0.2dB
OK
12.2dB
Poor
3.7dB
Immunity to
Interference
(Wanted/Unwanted
Ratio Out of
Band)
Not possible Good
80.8dB
Good
86.2dB
Good
78.7dB
Transmitter
Performance
Carrier Power
Not possible OK
-21.8dBm
OK
8.5dBm
OK
-5.7dBm
Transmitter
Performance
Spurious Emissions
Margin
5
Not possible Poor
-12.6dB
Good
>18.3dB
Good
>30.1dB
Note that the first test was not possible for any technology as for all but one technology, the samples
provided were from one manufacturer only. For the technology provider who provided samples from
different manufacturers it was not possible to perform the test.
Figure Packet Error Rate
Appen-i) C 4 HAN (*oDR6 (va#uation Criteria
This document has been written with the intention of it being an enduring, change controlled element of the
ESoDR documentation.
This appendix presents additional technical and commercial criteria to support and inform the ESoDR HAN
requirements. These criteria have been written to allow the Programme or Industry to use them to support
any future selection or evaluation exercise for candidate HAN technologies.
0 )orst case spurious emission margins measured against the appropriate E1 harmonised test standard for that technology
(' ,onvention
The table below uses the following column headings
- Ref a unique reference number for the criteria, these are not sequential but will be reorganized
prior to publication of the final draft set of criteria
- Criteria a description of the individual criteria
- Wired & Wireless a number of criteria will only apply to radio or wired solutions
6
- ESoDR/Security reference to a Programme document containing requirements. e.g. S.HAN.02 for
the security requirements, or ES.11 for the ESoDR
- Expectation what do the HAN WG anticipate as being an indicator of compliance with the criteria
can include any comments or expectations of test
As a general principle, all criteria, as appropriate, should state either;
o under normal operating circumstances, or
o typical usage etc.

-' Evaluation ,riteria
Ref Criteria Wired
&
Wireles
s
ESoDR/
Security
Expectation
General & ESoDR Requirements
6 'n assumption to note here is that wired in a H'( conte$t is e$pected to be a power line based technology. The use of
dedicated wiring is e$pected to be very limited
Ref Criteria Wired
&
Wireles
s
ESoDR/
Security
Expectation
1.1 Under normal operating
circumstances, there is no
expectation for customers to take
any action to maintain the operation
of the SM HAN
7
Both IM.04
OP.01
Is mainly a product characteristic and is
expected to be resolved through
development of the market
Test through written questions
Qualitative results are expected
1.2 The SM HAN should not add
unnecessary complexity or time to
commissioning, binding or pairing
devices
Both IM.11 Security Requirements will have a
bearing here
Product characteristic
Test through written questions
Qualitative results
Expectation that SM HAN contributes
less than 10 seconds to overall process
2 This is for technical operations 3 Customers are e$pected to interact with the H'( to pair4bind new devices
Ref Criteria Wired
&
Wireles
s
ESoDR/
Security
Expectation
1.3 Minimise number of site visits and
customer calls to address SM HAN
issues
Both Depends on quality of product
Test through evidence from other
relevant deployments
1.4 Percentage of GB homes covered by
this solution with no additional
equipment
Both Test through written questions and
evidence based responses
Derive coverage from other tests and
known parameters (e.g. building stock,
construction types, meter locations)
Linked to deliverable from Difficult
Meter Positions WG
1.5 Physical dimensions for SM HAN
solution components to be suitable
for use in metering and related
products and the environmental
conditions in which these are
expected to operate
Both Test through provision of reference
design/schematic
Circuit board and antenna (for wireless)
Ref Criteria Wired
&
Wireles
s
ESoDR/
Security
Expectation
Interoperability
2.1 Is an Open Standard as defined by
the European Union, or can
demonstrate a clear path to approval
as an Open Standard
Both HA.01
IN.03
See below for definition of an open
standard
Request statement of compliance or
planned compliance (including timed
delivery)
2.2 Genuine choice and competition
between silicon vendors
Both Expect a minimum of three independent
silicon vendors, although other
approaches could be considered if
criteria 2.1 is demonstrated
Test through provision of a statement of
compliance
Ref Criteria Wired
&
Wireles
s
ESoDR/
Security
Expectation
2.3 Interoperable solutions from a
minimum of three providers can be
tested today
8
Both HA.05 Today is at the point of undertaking
the testing
Non technical test is the availability of
products to test
Technical test will, where possible, link
three chips (from different providers)
together to demonstrate the most basic
interoperability
2.4 Support for a minimum of 8 HAN
Devices in a network
9
Both HA.19 Non technical test to be a request of
proof of compliance within the
specification
Non technical to demonstrate maximum
number of devices in a practical
implementation
10
5 This criteria will be tested non-technically for 6pre-"ualification7# but will also form part of the technical evaluation to provide
additional assurance of a critical re"uirement
8 This could be influenced by H'( )* options paper on scope of the H'(# but essentially provides for & 9eters# % IHD# %
Comms Hub and . other devices 3 repeaters# booster# microgeneration meters etc.
%: ;or enduring# product based testing# this should be considered for technical testing
Ref Criteria Wired
&
Wireles
s
ESoDR/
Security
Expectation
2.5 Support for suitable SM HAN
Application Profiles
Both HA.07
HA.15
IN.03
OP.02
Request details of support
Power
3.1 Power : active Both IH.02
OP.04
Current consumption, in Joules while
transmitting one secured half hourly
read of usage data from a meter
Ref Criteria Wired
&
Wireles
s
ESoDR/
Security
Expectation
3.2 Power : peak Both IH.02
OP.04
Peak current, in milliAmps (mA),
during a transmission
11
3.3 Power : dormant Wireless IH.02
OP.04
Current consumed, in microAmps (uA),
while the HAN solution is inactive /
asleep awaiting the next transmission
event
%% +r milli)atts for !owerline technologies
Ref Criteria Wired
&
Wireles
s
ESoDR/
Security
Expectation
3.4 Support for battery powered nodes
(i.e. have an ability to go into a
sleep mode)
Wireless GS.03
HA.11
Request for statement of compliance
Data Performance
4.1a Data Transmission Speed Wireless DS.2
HA.07
Time taken to transfer a block (/file) of
10KBytes of data from one device to
another device 10 metres (in free space)
apart (test to be done using the normal
modulation used/specified by the
standard)
Also perform the test for 300Kbytes of
data
Ref Criteria Wired
&
Wireles
s
ESoDR/
Security
Expectation
4.1b Data Transmission Speed Wired DS.2
HA.07
Time taken to transfer a block (/file) of
10KBytes of data from one device to
another device 10 metres apart (test to
be done using the normal modulation
used/specified by the standard)
Also perform the test for 300Kbytes of
data
4.2 Robustness Both ES.11
HA.09
To be tested by monitoring the level of
success for transmitting a set number of
standard messages.
12
To be completed for a number of test
environments (see 5.3)
%& ;or E$ample 3 simulate the transmission of %:#::: messages <or other suitable number to be agreed= in a standard
environment 3 how many complete first time# how many retries are needed# how many messages never complete.
Ref Criteria Wired
&
Wireles
s
ESoDR/
Security
Expectation
4.3 Supports Acknowledgement of
packets and retries (not application)
Both Request statement of compliance
Performance
5.1a Point to Point Range Wireless Physical point to point range (in
metres) and link budget (in dB) of the
radio in free space, tested with best in
class radios used for the standard being
tested, based on an example maximum
1% PER (Packet Error Rate), transmit
power set within regulatory limits for
that frequency/modulation and receive
sensitivity and antenna reflecting
normal commercial use of the radio in
SMHAN.
Ref Criteria Wired
&
Wireles
s
ESoDR/
Security
Expectation
5.1b Point to Point Range Wired Performance is greater than or equal to
a given threshold for a certain
percentage of socket pairs in a room of
x square metres. Based on maximum
1% PER (Packet Error Rate), transmit
power set within regulatory limits for
that frequency/modulation and receive
sensitivity and antenna reflecting
normal commercial use of the radio in
SMHAN
5.2a Point to Point Range Wireless As per 5.1a, but with tests conducted at
an application level using a standard
application profile to be used in
SMHAN, thus accounting for standard
network and application level
mechanisms for improving robustness
of message delivery and accepting x%
(to be defined, might be 0) loss of
application level messages.
5.2b Point to Point Range Wired As per 5.1b, but with tests conducted at
an application level using a standard
application profile to be used in
SMHAN, thus accounting for standard
network and application level
mechanisms for improving robustness
of message delivery and accepting x%
(to be defined, might be 0) loss of
application level messages.
Ref Criteria Wired
&
Wireles
s
ESoDR/
Security
Expectation
5.3 Defined set of tests in a variety of
simulated radio location scenarios.
Scenarios to be provided by Difficult
Meter Positions Working Group
Both Links to 1.4
Potential for some tests to be defined to
cover post installation, temporary or
permanent, environmental changes
5.4 Vulnerability to signal interference Both Request documentation to demonstrate
compliance and techniques
5.5 Ability to cope with signal
interference
Both Can investigate with other products;
- within license exempt bands for
wireless
- alternative PLC technologies in the
same spectrum range for wired
Technical tests to be defined to
challenge solutions against known
interferers
Ref Criteria Wired
&
Wireles
s
ESoDR/
Security
Expectation
5.6 Good Neighbour test the solution
should not materially affect other
networks
Both HA.22 Technical tests to assess coexistence
with:
- Other SM HANs in
neighbouring properties
- Other HANs or other networks
operating within premises
5.7 Good Citizen test the solution
should not materially affect other
services
Both Powerline solutions have potential to
interfere with e.g. amateur radio and
broadband services. Test should be
devised with this in mind.
5.8 Provision of diagnostic information
for SM HAN
Both Request statement of compliance
Ref Criteria Wired
&
Wireles
s
ESoDR/
Security
Expectation
Security Requirements
6.1 To be added when available from
Security Team
HA.02
HA.16
IM.10
Initial desktop testing to be carried out
by Programme Security Team
Future Flexibility
Ref Criteria Wired
&
Wireles
s
ESoDR/
Security
Expectation
7.1 Support for upgrades of SM HAN
firmware without direct physical
connection
Both HA.12
IM.02
OP.07
Request statement of compliance with
criteria
7.2 Support for firmware upgrades in
SM HAN Devices
Both As above
7.3 Existing nodes/devices are not
stranded as a result of upgrades to
the solution
Both Request statement of compliance of
criteria and some test scenarios
recovery if device was not present
when upgrade took place
Ref Criteria Wired
&
Wireles
s
ESoDR/
Security
Expectation
7.4 Longevity of frequency availability
and usability
Wireless Request statement of compliance of
criteria
7.5 Longevity of solution technology Both HA.20 Request statement of compliance of
criteria
Cost
Ref Criteria Wired
&
Wireles
s
ESoDR/
Security
Expectation
8.1 Typical bill of materials cost per SM
HAN enabled device
Both Request indicative costs based on a
known volume
8.2 Total Cost of Ownership including
power consumption
Both Request indicative cost against a
specific scenario of service and usage
Technology Maturity
Ref Criteria Wired
&
Wireles
s
ESoDR/
Security
Expectation
9.1 Use in equivalent smart metering
deployments
Both Request data to identify and quantify
implementation
Request utility/manufacturer references
9.2 Use in analogous applications
home automation, micro generation
etc.
activities
Request industry references
9.3 Clarity of development strategy Both Request for development roadmap to
show potential significant changes and
anticipated product lifecycles
Ref Criteria Wired
&
Wireles
s
ESoDR/
Security
Expectation
9.4 Capacity in vendors to meet smart
metering demands minimum of 4
nodes per home
Both Request statement of capacity
5 year deployment to 25 million homes
9.5 Availability of non-metering
products that could be relevant to
smart metering e.g. thermostats,
display devices
products
9' Evaluation Auestions
The following questions are recommended to be provided to representatives of candidate HAN solution
technologies to inform any selection or evaluation process.
Evaluation
Criteria Ref
Question
Q1.1(a) Is your SMHAN solution easy to maintain?
(i) Does your system include facilities for remote maintenance (e.g. an end-user "assistant" to
allow consumers to solve simple problems).
(ii) Please describe any specific features of your solution that support your answer.
Evaluation
Criteria Ref
Question
Q1.1(b) Please explain:
(i) How these maintenance features work
(ii) How they have been used in existing products that have been rolled-out, for smart metering
or other home related applications
(iii) Please provide references of implemented systems being maintained using the above features
Q1.2 Is your SMHAN solution easy to commission?
(i) Please provide an outline of your installation and commissioning process, including a
description of the skills required to complete an installation and any pre-install configuration
required prior to the installation visit
(ii) Describe your approach to field upgrades (e.g. to add a new SMHAN device) and indicate
whether appropriate upgrades can be carried out by the end user
(iii) Please describe any features of your solution that support your answer.
Q1.3(a) (i) Please describe your approach to system reliability and maintainability, stating calculated and
measured MTBFs and MTTRs where appropriate for a typical SMHAN installation
comprising four connected devices.
(ii) Please describe the specific features of your solution that increase the reliability of your
networks and reduce support effort.
Q1.3(b) (i) With reference to equivalent smart metering or home area networking deployments please
provide data on site visits and customer calls required to maintain deployments.
(ii) If appropriate please provide references for utility customers who may have this data.
Q1.4 (i) Please provide your assessment of the proportion of GB homes that could be covered by your
HAN solution without a need for additional equipment (e.g. repeaters)
(ii) Please provide evidence (references) to results of tests carried out in buildings representative
of GB housing stock, including multi-occupancy dwellings.
Note: A standard GB SMHAN installation will include an Electricity Meter, Gas Meter,
In-Home Display and a Comms Hub
(iii) Please describe which types of GB homes your solution could and couldnt cover (again
without additional equipment) and explain the reasons.
(iv) Please provide references to supporting material on other in-building tests which provide
further evidence of your system's capability.
Q1.5 (i) Please provide the physical dimensions (length, width, height) of a typical reference design
or module that might reasonably be used in a SMHAN device. This should include all
components necessary to operate the SMHAN communications, including antenna,
microcontroller and radio.
(ii) Please describe any specific implementations you may have for tamper-resistant antennas
that may be mounted externally to a meter enclosure, including details of the increase in
transmission range that they provide
Q2.1(a) (i) Is your solution based on an Open Standard?
(ii) Please provide evidence, including relevant standards references, or if you have a roadmap to
become an Open Standard please explain the schedule and plan for this.
Q2.1(b) Is the development of your standard managed by a not for profit organisation? If so, please identify
the organisation and provide evidence of its status.
Q2.1(c) Does your IPR policy include RAND licensing that can be availed of by anyone?
Evaluation
Criteria Ref
Question
Q2.1(d) Are your specifications available for everyone to study? Is there a cost involved? Please provide
details of how to access your specifications.
Q2.1(e) (i) What mechanism exists for stakeholders to contribute to the development of the
specifications?
(ii) Is there a requirement to become a member of an Alliance or equivalent, and if so, what is
the cost?
(iii) Is public review part of the decision-making process?
Q2.2(a) How many different commercially available platforms support your SMHAN solution?
Please list them including manufacturers name and contact details (e.g. web site) and provide
evidence of their commercial availability, or a roadmap for availability.
Note: By different, we mean that platforms use different silicon and software vendors/solutions in
their designs
Q2.3(a) (i) Please list the independent solutions available and provide evidence of the existence of at
least 3 different interoperable solutions from 3 different providers, ideally publicly available
and independently verifiable.
(ii) Please explain how interoperability of different manufacturers' solutions is tested and verified
(if this makes use of a Golden Unit, state who produces and maintains it)
Q2.3(b) (i) What is the established certification process to assess conformance of products to your
specifications?
(ii) Please list the names and locations of independent test and certification laboratories that are
set up to test products designed to your standard
Q2.4(a) What is the maximum number of devices that can be connected in a single self-contained network
using your solution? (i.e. without the use of gateways or bridges to connect separate subnets or
networks)?
Q2.4(b) (i) What is the recommended maximum number of devices in a single smart metering HAN
using your solution?
(ii) Please explain the characteristics of your solution that impact the maximum number of
devices in a smart metering HAN.
Q2.5(a) What smart metering HAN application profiles or protocols does your solution support?
Please provide details including as appropriate links to appropriate standards and specifications.
Q2.5(b) Please provide evidence of the use of your solution including the aforementioned application profile
or protocols in other smart metering HAN deployments.
Q2.5(c) Please provide evidence of how this application profile or protocol supports GB HAN requirements,
including if applicable any roadmap.
Q3.1 For a typical SM HAN device using your solution, what is the expected energy consumption, in
Joules, from wake up/activate to sleep/deactivate, to transmit one secured half hourly read of usage
data from a meter?
Note: Please specify what value the transmission power is set at to send this data (GB maximum
regulatory limit or lower).
If this response differs depending on individual implementations or environment/external conditions
please explain the likely range of answers for different implementations.
Evaluation
Criteria Ref
Question
Q3.2 For a typical SM HAN device using your solution, what is the expected peak current in milliamps
(mA) during transmission of a packet of data?
Note: Please specify under which reference voltage the solution is operating. If this response differs
depending on individual implementations please explain the likely range of answers for different
implementations.
Q3.3 For a typical SM HAN device using your solution, what is the current consumed, in microAmps
(uA), and the average active energy consumption, in Joules per hour while the HAN solution is
inactive / asleep awaiting the next transmission event.
Note: If this response differs depending on individual implementations please explain the likely range
of answers for different implementations.
Q3.4 Does your solution support battery powered nodes? Please explain how. Please explain if the battery
powered nodes have specific characteristics differing from mains powered nodes.
Q4.1(a) What is the expected application data throughput for your solution in a point-to-point transmission?
Note: Please include the overhead of any application or networking protocols, security and any
acknowledgement mechanisms.
Q4.1(b) What is the expected time taken to transfer a block (/file) of 10KBytes (Kilobytes) of smart metering
data from one device to another device 10 metres (in free space) apart in the SMHAN?
Note: Please state your assumptions concerning the overhead of signalling/control data that your
system adds to the data payload before transmission
Q4.1(c) What is the expected time taken to transfer a block (/file) of 300KBytes (Kilobytes) of smart
metering data from one device to another device 10 metres (in free space) apart in the SMHAN?
Note: Please state your assumptions concerning the overhead of signalling/control data that your
system adds to the data payload before transmission
Q4.2(a) Please describe all mechanisms used by your solution to ensure robust communications between
devices, and refer to any case studies or evidence to show robustness of your solution.
Note: Please list the mechanisms that apply at application, network and physical layers within your
protocol and refer to specification documents as appropriate
Q5.1 (i) What is the expected point-to-point range of your radio in free space, based on maximum 1%
PER (Packet Error Rate), transmit power set within EU regulatory limits for that
frequency/modulation and receive sensitivity and antenna reflecting normal commercial use
of the radio in SMHAN?
(ii) Please provide evidence and results of independent testing in support of the range figures you
quote
Q5.2 (i) Are there any mechanisms in your solution that would extend the point-to-point range
beyond that normally expected by the physical medium (e.g. network retries to improve error
rates, use of repeaters or range extenders)?
(ii) Please explain how these mechanisms work and the measured impact that they have on
operating range at a given BER
Q5.4 (i) Please identify any potential interferers with your solution and how they could impact
communications.
(ii) Please list and quantify the expected impact over the 15 year lifetime of the SMHAN system
of:
(a) co-channel (in-band) interferers
(b) adjacent channel (out-of-band) interferers
which exist or are expected to exist in GB homes over the system lifetime
Evaluation
Criteria Ref
Question
Q5.5 (i) Please describe any mechanisms available to your solution for dealing with potential signal
interference, with reference to appropriate specification or standards documents.
(ii) Please outline your proposal for dealing with any SMHANs which fail in the field as a result
of increasing levels of interference in your chosen frequency band from other services during
the 15 year lifetime of the system
Q5.6 Please describe how your system design ensures that your solution does not interfere with or
otherwise materially affect other networks or services using the same or different frequencies or
physical media.
Note: Please include in your analysis both existing networks and projections for future networks,
where details are available
Q5.8 Please describe the information provided by your solution to assist with the diagnosis or analysis of
SMHAN network connectivity and performance (e.g. signal strength, data error rate).
Q7.1a (i) Does your solution support the upgrade of firmware on SMHAN devices without physically
connecting to the device (e.g. using a radio link).
(ii) Please describe the mechanism and refer to any specifications or standards as appropriate.
(iii) If your system does not support remote upgrade, please describe how upgrades are carried
out and the effort involved in achieving this
Q7.1b (i) If existing, please provide example of products (smart metering or home applications) that
were actually upgraded on the field without manual intervention.
(ii) Please describe the upgrade purpose, size, number of products affected, and any reference to
the utility or customer of the product.
Note: Where appropriate, please provide a reference to a utility that uses your system and can
provide such data (on a confidential basis if necessary)
Q7.3 (i) Please describe the mechanisms in your solution for ensuring that existing nodes/devices in
the smart metering HAN are not stranded as a result of a firmware upgrade.
(ii) Please list separately the mechanisms for dealing with:
(a) a network where devices may have more than one firmware version
(b) a situation where a remote firmware upgrade fails on some or all devices
Q7.4 What is your expectation for the future availability and usability of the physical media (e.g. radio
frequency) used by your solution? Your response should consider any likely threats and present
arguments to support the continued use of your solution into the future.
Q7.5 (i) What is your expectation for the future availability of solutions and platforms?
(ii) Please provide examples of (public domain) future product roadmaps from suppliers of your
solution
Q8.1 What is the typical bill of material cost for a manufacturer to add your solution to a SM HAN device,
inclusive of any microcontrollers required to run a networking stack and application protocols,
transceivers, antenna, crystals etc.? Please consider a mains powered device (no battery needed).
Note: Please use 1 million units as a base line for your answer and if there is likely to be a range of
answers please provide this range and an explanation of what determines the lower and upper limits.
Evaluation
Criteria Ref
Question
Q8.2(a) Please provide your assessment of the total cost of ownership of your solution in an Electric meter
over 15 years of usage, including initial BOM cost, ongoing power consumption, device/module
replacement etc.
Note: Please base your answer on an electric meter that is always available for real-time
communications and which sends a packet of usage data every 5 seconds.
You may assume the cost of energy remains constant at 10p per KWh during the lifetime of the
system
Q8.2(b) Please provide your assessment of the total cost of ownership of your solution in a Gas meter over 15
years of usage, including initial BOM cost, ongoing power consumption or battery replacement,
device/module replacement etc.
To simplify calculation, please consider that the battery consumption is dedicated to the HAN
communications (i.e.: no valve operations, no measurements microcontroller sharing the battery).
Please base your answer on a Gas meter that communicates to send a packet of usage data every 30
minutes.
You may assume the cost of energy remains constant at 10p per KWh during the lifetime of the
system
Q9.1(a) Please provide case studies or evidence of the use of your solution in equivalent smart metering
deployments.
Note: Where possible, please include references to numbers of devices and contact information at
energy suppliers/utilities.
Q9.2 Is your solution applicable to analogous applications outside of the current SM HAN deployment? If
so, please identify analogous markets where there has been significant usage of your solution,
providing evidence in the form of case studies or references to manufacturers, product
announcements etc.
Q9.3 Please provide a roadmap for your solution, clearly showing planned and ongoing major
developments with timescales for completion.
Q9.4(a) Please provide an estimate of how many nodes using your solution were shipped in 2009 and 2010.
Q9.4(b) Please describe the impact on capacity for vendors of your solution should they have to deliver 100
million additional nodes for use in GB SM HAN deployments over approximately 5-6 years (from
2014 to 2019).
B' Evaluation 1ests
The following tests are recommended to be carried out on suitable sample equipment provided by
representatives of candidate HAN solution technologies to inform any selection or evaluation process.
To ensure that tests deliver the answers required it is proposed that the tests are based on the following
principles:
% Tests should deliver results that are easily understood by non technical people if at all possible. For
example, it is preferable for testing to be performed using real SMHAN messages rather than test
packets when performing tests on a radio.
% Tests should ideally be carried out using fully representative (deployable) products, except where the
manipulation of the device required to perform that test makes this practically difficult.
% Where possible, all tests on radio performance should be performed using an over-the-air
connection (taking full account of any variations in antenna performance in different orientations).
Performance measurements using wired (radio) connections should only be used where it is
necessary to establish a base line or theoretical ideal.
% All tests of radio performance should be made using the agreed application profile and active
network stack software (incorporating appropriate retry/retransmission mechanisms) to ensure tests
are representative of performance in real SMHAN environments.
% Performance tests should use one of the following standard tests conditions:
(a) Nominal radio environment (no interference or multipath, nominal radio path loss), and
(b) Challenging radio environment (representative interference and multipath, higher radio path
loss)
13
% Tests should be performed by an independent test house, supported by (but not influenced by)
equipment suppliers.
The following tests are proposed, where appropriate linked to the Evaluation Criteria detailed above:
Re
f
Test Evaluation
Criteria
Ref.
Proposed Tests Notes
1 Interoperability 2.3 Perform
interconnection tests
between devices from
different vendors
Tests to be performed using full range of
features and modes that are mandated to support
SMHAN functionality.
This is largely a software test activity conducted
using the nominal radio environment.
If appropriate test equipment exists that can
simulate other network elements, testing could
be performed using this, based on defined test
scripts. An alternative is the use of Golden
devices
2 Multi-device
support
2.4 Perform a functional
test using a network
containing the
maximum number of
nodes
Tests should ensure that all devices are
communicating on the network, with
representative data loading.
Tested using the Nominal radio environment.
%, ;urther wor is re"uired to define these environments. 'lthough adding interfering sources to an over-the-air test is relatively
easy# introducing representative multipath fading is much more difficult. Cabled <wired= tests may be re"uired to separately
assess the effect of multipath on the technologies being tested.
Re
f
Test Evaluation
Criteria
Ref.
3 Power
consumption
3.1
(Active)
3.2
(Peak)
3.3
(Dormant)
Measure power
consumption when
network is operating in
a representative mode
Where evaluation is performed on an example
radio module which is supported by (for
example) an evaluation board, it shall be
possible for the radio module to be decoupled
from the evaluation board to allow power
measurements of (just) the radio module to be
made.
Measuring the profile of the power consumption
for completion of representative activities over a
representative time cycle (e.g. 1 hour) would
provide the clearest way of evaluating different
technologies this would show the variation in
power over the full sleep-wake-transmit-sleep
cycle. In addition it would highlight any peak
current demands that are particularly relevant
for gas meter battery applications.
Tested using both the Nominal and
Challenging radio environments.
4 Data throughput 4.1 (data
throughput),
4.2
(robustness)
Measure time taken to
transfer a block (/file)
of 10 kB and 300 kB of
smart metering data
from one device to
another device, and
perform data
comparison to detect
errors/lost packets etc.
Tested using both the Nominal and
Challenging radio environments the latter
would provide a good measure of system
robustness.
Tests should also be carried out at an
application or end product level to get
information on real application data throughput
with all protocols and overheads included
Re
f
Test Evaluation
Criteria
Ref.
5 Range 5.1, 5.2, 5.3 Physical point to point
range of the radio in
free space
Tested using an interference- and multipath-free
radio environment, with radio transmit power
conforming to regulatory limits and receive
sensitivity and antenna reflecting normal
commercial use of the radio in SMHAN.
Transmitter set to transmit test messages:
Message Error Rate (number of dropped
application messages) measured for various
equipment spacings
14
. Full SMHAN application
profile to be used to allow retransmissions
(etc.).
Range to be measured in free space (ideally
directly outdoors), and in a number of
representative building environments.
Range in free space should ideally be tested
directly outdoors in a large open area, but if a
suitable lab test is possible and proven to be
accurate this could be used.
It may be useful to record signal quality
measurements such as LQI, RSSI.
%. The intention here would be to "uantify performance vs. range and allow this to be plotted to allow different technologies to
be assessed against each other
Re
f
Test Evaluation
Criteria
Ref.
6 Immunity to
interference
5.5 Functional and
performance tests under
different interference
conditions
These tests will use various challenging radio
environments to assess the impact of both co-
channel (in-band) and adjacent-channel (out
of band) interference on normal network
operation.
Interference scenarios to be based on likely real
world SMHAN environments, using real or
simulated interference sources.
Interference sources to include likely devices to
be found in the home, including Wi-Fi
networks, other HAN type networks,
microwave ovens, video senders, domestic
entertainment devices and mobile devices (in
various combinations). In addition, possible
interference from sources outside the home
environment (radio networks and other SMHAN
networks, for example) will also be included.
Sensitivity to interference from one type of
interferer, and interferers acting together, to be
investigated.
Impact on functionality and data throughput to
be evaluated.
7 Transmitter
spurious and
noise
5.6 Measurement of
transmit power level,
and noise and
spurious generated
The data recorded will allow an assessment of
the likely power, noise and spurious generated
by one SMHAN, and (in aggregate) of multiple
SMHANs operating in close proximity.
8 HAN co-
existence
5.6 Technical tests to
simulate coexistence
with:
(a) Other SM HANs
in neighbouring
properties
(b) Other HANs or
other networks
operating within
premises
This is a Good Neighbour test, verifying that
the solution does not materially affect other
networks.
Tests will be conducted to assess the impact of:
(a) Multiple networks for the technology being
tested within range of one another
(b) The SMHAN on possible victim devices or
networks in the operational band (e.g. the effect
of the SMHAN on an active Wi-Fi___33
network)
Re
f
Test Evaluation
Criteria
Ref.
9 Support for
upgrades of SM
HAN firmware
7.1 Perform over the air
software update and
ensure device
communicates and
functions correctly after
update has been
completed.
Principally a software test but performed using
both the Nominal and Challenging radio
environments to verify robust operation in real-
life environments.

HAN Select Options - Supporting Document - Stage 12

Diunggah oleh

Informasi Dokumen

Deskripsi Asli:

Judul Asli

Hak Cipta

Format Tersedia

Bagikan dokumen Ini

Bagikan atau Tanam Dokumen

Opsi Berbagi

Apakah menurut Anda dokumen ini bermanfaat?

Apakah konten ini tidak pantas?

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

HAN Select Options - Supporting Document - Stage 12

Diunggah oleh

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

Industrys Draft Technical Specifications

Anda mungkin juga menyukai