NRF9160 KC certification RE test problemn

RE: NRF9160 KC certification RE test problemn

hogen — Mon, 06 Apr 2026 14:31:21 GMT

Thank you for your reply. This issue has been resolved. It was finally found to be a problem with the signaling settings of the CMW500. After modifying the signaling setting of the CMW500, the issue has been resolved.

RE: NRF9160 KC certification RE test problemn

Simon D-M — Fri, 27 Mar 2026 11:48:16 GMT

Hi Hogen,

Sorry for the delay.

Our theory on what is happening in your case is the following: The band lock seems to be working fine. But the strange thing is that the problematic frequencies are not on the LTE bands. They possibly are unwanted emissions caused by the harmonics from the board around the nRF9160.

However, there are things that are still unclear:

Which band and TX frequency was used on the measurement picture you sent ?
Does the "harmonics" changes when another frequency is used ?

If you can get these questions answered it would be great

Also, if you really think that it is our chip that produce these frequencies, can you please provide some raw modem traces (.mtrace or .bin).

Best regards,

Simon D-M

RE: NRF9160 KC certification RE test problemn

Simon D-M — Thu, 19 Mar 2026 15:06:09 GMT

Hi Hogen,

Sorry, our expert on that subject is out of office this week. He should come back next week.

I'll keep you updated as soon as I have an answer.

Thank you for your patience, I'm really sorry for the delay.

Best regards.

Simon D-M

RE: NRF9160 KC certification RE test problemn

Simon D-M — Mon, 16 Mar 2026 12:46:01 GMT

Hi,

[quote user="hogen"]

The AT command answer is OK. I also query the lock result by command "AT%XBANDLOCK?" after BANDLOCK command, the result show that the configuration has taken effect.

I haven't tested the short commands yet, as the certification authority charges a fee for each test. However, I've confirmed that the long commands work for network access. For example, I lock the band to 3 and 5. But our operator's actual frequency band is 8, the device can't connect successfully. When I set the band to 3, 5, and 8, it can connect(lte_lc_connect()) successfully.

[/quote]

If the answer was "OK" as you said, It means that the command was indeed taken into account. So it would be the same with the short-form command.

Honestly, I'm not sure to know what your issue is. However, I should soon get an answer from someone internally, and I'll come back to you before the end of the week.

Thank you for your patience.

Best regards,

Simon D-M

RE: NRF9160 KC certification RE test problemn

hogen — Mon, 16 Mar 2026 01:28:52 GMT

Hi, thanks for your sugguestion.

The AT command answer is OK. I also query the lock result by command "AT%XBANDLOCK?" after BANDLOCK command, the result show that the configuration has taken effect.

Best regards,

Hogen

RE: NRF9160 KC certification RE test problemn

Simon D-M — Fri, 13 Mar 2026 12:07:41 GMT

Hi,

Sorry, I'm not extremely knowledgeable on RE measurement tests. I've forwarded your issue internally.

For the moment, I see that in your %XBANDLOCK command you have all the zeros before the band that you want to lock. This is not needed, you can have the command %XBANDLOCK 1, "10100" and it would do the same thing. Can you try with the shorter command maybe? And, what was the modem answer when you sent the long command ?

Best regards,

Simon D-M

RE: NRF9160 KC certification RE test problemn

hogen — Fri, 13 Mar 2026 07:34:16 GMT

To add a bit of information, the modem's firmware version is mfw_nrf9160_1.3.7