Abstract-Millimeter wave (mmWave) communications have recently attracted large research interest, since the huge available bandwidth can potentially lead to rates of multiple Gbps (gigabit per second) per user. Though mmWave can be readily used in stationary scenarios such as indoor hotspots or backhaul, it is challenging to use mmWave in mobile networks, where the transmitting/receiving nodes may be moving, channels may have a complicated structure, and the coordination among multiple nodes is difficult. To fully exploit the high potential rates of mmWave in mobile networks, lots of technical problems must be addressed. This paper presents a comprehensive survey of mmWave communications for future mobile networks (5G and beyond). We first summarize the recent channel measurement campaigns and modeling results. Then, we discuss in detail recent progresses in multiple input multiple output (MIMO) transceiver design for mmWave communications. After that, we provide an overview of the solution for multiple access and backhauling, followed by analysis of coverage and connectivity. Finally, the progresses in the standardization and deployment of mmWave for mobile networks are discussed.

No abstract

The 5G System is being developed and enhanced to provide unparalleled connectivity to connect everyone and everything, everywhere. The first version of the 5G System, based on the Release 15 (''Rel-15'') version of the specifications developed by 3GPP, comprising the 5G Core (5GC) and 5G New Radio (NR) with 5G User Equipment (UE), is currently being deployed commercially throughout the world both at sub-6 GHz and at mmWave frequencies. Concurrently, the second phase of 5G is being standardized by 3GPP in the Release 16 (''Rel-16'') version of the specifications which will be completed by March 2020. While the main focus of Rel-15 was on enhanced mobile broadband services, the focus of Rel-16 is on new features for URLLC (Ultra-Reliable Low Latency Communication) and Industrial IoT, including Time Sensitive Communication (TSC), enhanced Location Services, and support for Non-Public Networks (NPNs). In addition, some crucial new features, such as NR on unlicensed bands (NR-U), Integrated Access & Backhaul (IAB) and NR Vehicle-to-X (V2X), are also being introduced as part of Rel-16, as well as enhancements for massive MIMO, wireless and wireline convergence, the Service Based Architecture (SBA) and Network Slicing. Finally, the number of use cases, types of connectivity and users, and applications running on top of 5G networks, are all expected to increase dramatically, thus motivating additional security features to counter security threats which are expected to increase in number, scale and variety. In this paper, we discuss the Rel-16 features and provide an outlook towards Rel-17 and beyond, covering both new features and enhancements of existing features. 5G Evolution will focus on three main areas: enhancements to features introduced in Rel-15 and Rel-16, features that are needed for operational enhancements, and new features to further expand the applicability of the 5G System to new markets and use cases. INDEX TERMS 5G new radio, 5G core, 5G system, non-public network, industrial IoT, time sensitive communication, ultra-reliable low-latency communications, integrated access and backhaul, converged edge and core clouds, positioning, NR-unlicensed, non-terrestrial network.

No abstract

Delineating the driving forces behind plate motions is important for understanding the processes that have shaped Earth throughout its history. However, the accurate prediction of plate motions, boundary-zone deformation, rigidity, and stresses remains a difficult frontier in numerical modeling. We present a global dynamic model that produces a good fit to such parameters by accounting for lateral viscosity variations in the top 200 kilometers of Earth, together with forces associated with topography and lithosphere structure, as well as coupling with mantle flow. The relative importance of shallow structure versus deeper mantle flow varies over Earth's surface. Our model reveals where mantle flow contributes toward driving or resisting plate motions. Furthermore, subducted slabs need not act as strong stress guides to satisfy global observations of plate motions and stress.

The way in which basal tractions, associated with mantle convection, couples with the lithosphere is a fundamental problem in geodynamics. A successful lithosphere‐mantle coupling model for the Earth will satisfy observations of plate motions, intraplate stresses, and the plate boundary zone deformation. We solve the depth integrated three‐dimensional force balance equations in a global finite element model that takes into account effects of both topography and shallow lithosphere structure as well as tractions originating from deeper mantle convection. The contribution from topography and lithosphere structure is estimated by calculating gravitational potential energy differences. The basal tractions are derived from a fully dynamic flow model with both radial and lateral viscosity variations. We simultaneously fit stresses and plate motions in order to delineate a best‐fit lithosphere‐mantle coupling model. We use both the World Stress Map and the Global Strain Rate Model to constrain the models. We find that a strongly coupled model with a stiff lithosphere and 3–4 orders of lateral viscosity variations in the lithosphere are best able to match the observational constraints. Our predicted deviatoric stresses, which are dominated by contribution from mantle tractions, range between 20–70 MPa. The best‐fitting coupled models predict strain rates that are consistent with observations. That is, the intraplate areas are nearly rigid whereas plate boundaries and some other continental deformation zones display high strain rates. Comparison of mantle tractions and surface velocities indicate that in most areas tractions are driving, although in a few regions, including western North America, tractions are resistive.

S U M M A R YModelling the lithospheric stress field has proved to be an efficient means of determining the role of lithospheric versus sublithospheric buoyancies and also of constraining the driving forces behind plate tectonics. Both these sources of buoyancies are important in generating the lithospheric stress field. However, these sources and the contribution that they make are dependent on a number of variables, such as the role of lateral strength variation in the lithosphere, the reference level for computing the gravitational potential energy per unit area (GPE) of the lithosphere, and even the definition of deviatoric stress. For the mantle contribution, much depends on the mantle convection model, including the role of lateral and radial viscosity variations, the spatial distribution of density buoyancies, and the resolution of the convection model. GPE differences are influenced by both lithosphere density buoyancies and by radial basal tractions that produce dynamic topography. The global lithospheric stress field can thus be divided into (1) stresses associated with GPE differences (including the contribution from radial basal tractions) and (2) stresses associated with the contribution of horizontal basal tractions. In this paper, we investigate only the contribution of GPE differences, both with and without the inferred contribution of radial basal tractions. We use the Crust 2.0 model to compute GPE values and show that these GPE differences are not sufficient alone to match all the directions and relative magnitudes of principal strain rate axes, as inferred from the comparison of our depth integrated deviatoric stress tensor field with the velocity gradient tensor field within the Earth's plate boundary zones. We argue that GPE differences calibrate the absolute magnitudes of depth integrated deviatoric stresses within the lithosphere; shortcomings of this contribution in matching the stress indicators within the plate boundary zones can be corrected by considering the contribution from horizontal tractions associated with density buoyancy driven mantle convection. Deviatoric stress magnitudes arising from GPE differences are in the range of 1-4 TN m −1 , a part of which is contributed by dynamic topography. The EGM96 geoid data set is also used as a rough proxy for GPE values in the lithosphere. However, GPE differences from the geoid fail to yield depth integrated deviatoric stresses that can provide a good match to the deformation indicators. GPE values inferred from the geoid have significant shortcomings when used on a global scale due to the role of dynamically support of topography. Another important factor in estimating the depth integrated deviatoric stresses is the use of the correct level of reference in calculating GPE. We also elucidate the importance of understanding the reference pressure for calculating deviatoric stress and show that overestimates of deviatoric stress may result from either simplified 2-D approximations of the thin sheet equations or the assumption that the mea...

We provide new insights into the lithosphere‐mantle coupling problem through a joint modeling of lithosphere dynamics and mantle convection and through comparison of model results with the high resolution velocity gradient tensor model along the Earth's plate boundary zones. Using a laterally variable effective viscosity lithosphere model, we compute depth integrated deviatoric stresses associated with both gravitational potential energy (GPE) differences and deeper mantle density buoyancy‐driven convection. When deviatoric stresses from horizontal basal tractions, associated with deeper density buoyancy‐driven convective circulation of the mantle, are added to those from GPE differences, the fit between the model deviatoric stress field and the deformation indicators improves dramatically in most areas of continental deformation. We find that the stresses induced by the horizontal tractions arising from deep mantle convection contribute approximately 50% of the magnitude of the Earth's deviatoric lithospheric stress field. We also demonstrate that lithosphere‐asthenosphere viscosity contrasts and lateral variations within the lithospheric plate boundary zones play an important role in generating the right direction and magnitude of tractions that yield an optimal match between deviatoric stress tensor patterns and the deformation indicators.