eccrep096

8/12/2019 ECCRep096

1/76

ECC REPORT 96

COMPATIBILITY BETWEEN UMTS 900/1800 AND SYSTEMS

OPERATING IN ADJACENT BANDS

Krako! Mar"# $00%

Electronic Communications Committee (ECC)within the European Conference of Postal and Telecommunications Administrations (CEPT)

8/12/2019 ECCRep096

2/76

ECC REPORT 96Page 2

1 E&ECUTI'E SUMMARY

This report deals with the compatibility study between UMT!""#$%"" and systems operating in ad&acent bands'

This report gies the description of the compatibility study methodology co*e+istence scenarios simulation assumptionsand the results for the deployment of UMT operating in !"" M,- and in $%"" M,- bands ta.ing into account ad&acent

band systems' Although best effort has been made to proide assumptions and results to encompass the widest range ofpossible situations howeer there might be some country specific cases where different assumptions need to be made'/urthermore it has to be noted that based on the operational e+perience further analyses may hae to be carried out'

0ased on the interference analysis the following conclusions can be made1

UMT!"" can be deployed in the same geographical area in co*e+istence with M*3 as follows1

$) There isa priorino need of an additional guard band between UMT!"" and M*3 a carrier separation of 2'%M,- or more between the UMT!"" carrier and the nearest M*3 carrier is sufficient without pre&udice to

proisions in point 2)' This conclusion is based on Monte Carlo simulations assumed suitable for typical case'

2) ,oweer for some critical cases (e'g' with high located antenna open and sparsely populated areas sered by highpower UMT 0 close to the railway trac.s bloc.ing etc which would lead to assumption of possible direct lineof sight coupling) the MC4 calculations demonstrate that coordination is needed for a certain range of distances(up to 5 .m or more from railway trac.)'

6) 7t is beneficial to actiate M*3 uplin. power control especially for the train mounted M otherwise the impacton UMT U4 capacity could be important when the UMT networ. is using the 8 M,- channel ad&acent to theM*3 band' ,oweer it has to be recogni-ed that this is only applicable in low speed areas as elsewhere the useof uplin. control in M*3 will cause significantly increased call drop out rates'

5) 7n order to protect M*3 operations UMT operators should ta.e care when deploying UMT in the !"" M,-band where site engineering measures and#or better9 filtering capabilities (proiding additional coupling loss inorder to match the re:uirements defined for the critical#specific cases) may be needed in order to install UMTsites close to the railway trac. when the UMT networ. is using the 8 M,- channel ad&acent to the M*3 band'

9 Currently the out*of band interference leel is gien by 6PP T 28'$"5 ;ME system and UMT!"" that would bring sufficient isolation are1 additional filteringand a larger guard band' ,oweer these two mitigation techni:ues are not &udged applicable' 7t has to be noted that theimpact of the >ME ground station (and /3 if necessary) on the UMT !"" mobile stations has not been studied in

this report and may need additional studies' Therefore the report suggests that a regulatory solution should bee+amined' 7t is necessary that a common approach be used within Europe to ensure the compatibility'

8/12/2019 ECCRep096

3/76

ECC REPORT 96Page 6

/urther compatibility study will be necessary if this fre:uency range is to be used by >ME systems or futureaeronautical systems addressed under =3C Agenda 7tem $'?'

The compatibility study between UMT!"" and M7> indicated that an additional margin of $< d0 of UMT!"" 0spurious emissions oer the fre:uency range between $""" M,- and $2"? M,- in reference to 6PP technicalspecifications is re:uired for the protection of M7> terminal receier' 7f this additional margin is obtained by theUMT 0 real performance being better than 6PP technical specifications no other protection means such asseparation distance etc' are re:uired for the protection of M7>'

Potential interference between UMT$%"" and >ECT does not appear to be a problem as the >ECT system has a>CA (>ynamic Channel Allocation) mechanism which efficiently aoids an interfered channel e+cept if both systemsare deployed indoor' 7ndeed although >ECT uses >CA interference analysis shows that in the case of UMT$%""indoor pico cellular deployment using the fre:uency channel ad&acent to the >ECT fre:uency band the use of someinterference mitigation techni:ue may be necessary to address potential interference to indoor >ECT 3/P or PP',oweer in practice M$%"" deployment has demonstrated that no additional interference mitigation techni:uesare really needed' This statement can be assumed to be e+tended to the compatibility between UMT$%"" and >ECTsystems'

The analysis indicates that the potential interference between UMT$%"" UE and METAT Earth tations should notbe a problem'

The preliminary interference analysis leads to the conclusion that with a guard band of ME it is also used as safety*of*life application' Thefre:uency plan and the characteristics of the ciil#military aeronautical radionaigation system as well as the interferenceanalysis between UMT!"" and the ciil#military aeronautical radionaigation system are not considered in this report'

8/12/2019 ECCRep096

4/76

ECC REPORT 96Page 5

Ta()* o+ "o,-*,-.

1 E&ECUTI'E SUMMARY$

$ INTRODUCTION%

COMPATIBILITY STUDY BETWEEN UMTS900 AND SYSTEMS OPERATING IN ADJACENT BANDS %

6'$ @TEMPE3AT7B7BA>ACEBT0AB> ''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''@0ET=EEBUMT!"" AB>>ME''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''6"3.%.1 +M, and M!S system characteristics....................................................................................................... .......3"

3.%.2 #ase Study.......................................................................................................................................................... ..3%3.%.3 Interference analysis results.................................................................................................................................3&

3.%.% )nalysis of the results...........................................................................................................................................3*

3.%.& Mitiation techniues and mitiation effects................................................................................................... ....%1

3.%./ #onclusions..........................................................................................................................................................%2

6'8 CMPAT70747T@TU>@0ET=EEBUMT!"" AB>M7>'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''563.&.1 System parameters and co-e0istence scenario.....................................................................................................%3

6'8'$'$ /re:uency band plan''''''''''''' ''''''''''''''' ''''''''''''''' '''''''''''''''' ''''''''''''''' ''''''''''''''' ''''''''''''''' ''''''''''''''' ''''''''''''''' ''''''' ''''' '''' 566'8'$'2 ystem parameters'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''566'8'$'6 Propagation model'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''50M''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''82 D*%< >0M''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''82 $< >0''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''82 2"" M''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''82 *2$ >0M''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''82 *%< >0M''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''82 $< >0''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''82 6"" M''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''82 *22 >0M''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''82 *%% >0M''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''82 $? >0''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''82 5"" M''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''82 *26 >0M''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''82

8/12/2019 ECCRep096

5/76

ECC REPORT 96Page 8

*%! >0M''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''82 $8 >0''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''82 8"" M''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''82 *25 >0M''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''82 *!" >0M''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''82 $5 >0''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''82

?"" M''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''82 *2? >0M''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''82 *!2 >0M''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''82 $2 >0''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''82 0M''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''82 *!5 >0M''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''82 $" >0''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''82 %"" M''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''82 *2! >0M''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''82 *!8 >0M''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''82 ! >0''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''82 !"" M''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''82

*6" >0M''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''82 *!? >0M''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''82 % >0''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''82 $""" M''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''82 *62 >0M''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''82 *!% >0M''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''82 ? >0''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''82 $8"" M''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''82 *6? >0M''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''82 *$"2 >0M''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''82 2 >0''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''82 2""" M''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''82 " >0''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''82

3.&.3 #onclusions..........................................................................................................................................................&36'? CBC4U7B''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''86

COMPATIBILITY STUDY BETWEEN UMTS1800 AND SYSTEMS OPERATING IN ADJACENT BANDS 22

5'$ @TEMPE3AT7B7BA>ACEBT0AB>'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''885'2 CMPAT70747T@TU>@0ET=EEBUMT$%"" AB>>ECT''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''8?

%.2.1 +,#! system characteristics........................................................................................................................... ....&/

%.2.2 M!S18"" system characteristics................................................................................................................. ......&

%.2.3 Interference analysis between M!S18"" and +,#!.........................................................................................&8

%.2.% Interference analysis and simulation results........................................................................................................&*

%.2.& #onclusions........................................................................................................................................................../1

5'6 CMPAT70747T@CB7>E3AT7B0ET=EEBUMT$%"" AB>METAT ''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''?$%.3.1 Main characteristics of M,!S)!........................................................................................................................./1

%.3.2 Interference analysis considerations..................................................................................................................../2%.3.3 #onclusions........................................................................................................................................................../3

5'5 CMPAT70747T@CB7>E3AT7B0ET=EEBUMT$%"" AB>3A>7M7C3P,BE'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''?6%.%.1 Main characteristics of Radio Microphones......................................................................................................../3

%.%.2 Interference analysis................................................................................................................................ .......... ../&

%.%.3 #onclusions........................................................................................................................................................../&

5'8 CMPAT70747T@TU>@0ET=EEBUMT$%"" AB>/7FE>E3;7CE''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''?85'? CBC4U7B'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''?8

2 RE3ERENCES 66

ANNE& 1 4 GSM900 AND UMTS900 ACLR PRO3ILES6%

ANNE& $ 4 INTER3ERENCE ANALYSIS CALCULATION WIT5 MCL APPROAC5 3OR T5E CO4

E&ISTENCE BETWEEN UMTS900 AND GSM4R69

ANNE& 4 ABBRE'IATIONS%6

8/12/2019 ECCRep096

6/76

ECC REPORT 96Page ?

8/12/2019 ECCRep096

7/76

ECC REPORT 96Page

8/12/2019 ECCRep096

13/76

ECC REPORT 96Page $6

=ithout ta.ing into account the power control effect figure 6*5 shows that at 2'% M,- carrier separation UMT UE out*of*band emission is at the same leel as M!"" M at 6'" M,- carrier separation it is higher but still below the out*of*

band emission of M!"" M at 5"" .,- carrier separation'

7mplementing power control in M!"" and UMT!"" terminals helps to reduce emission leels drastically' ECC 3eport

%2 (Compatibility tudy /or UMT perating within the M !"" and M $%"" /re:uency 0ands) proides the C>/(Cumulatie >istribution /unction) of UMT!"" UE transmit power' /or outdoor UE it should be noted that !"O ofterminals transmit at a power leel lower than *26 d0m and 8" O at a power leel lower than *62 d0m' 7t should also benoted that M M power control is much less fast and less efficient compared to UMT UE power control'

3.2.2.3 )nalysis summary

The comparison of out*of*band emissions between M!"" and UMT!"" shows that the UMT!"" and M!"" out*of*band emissions do not present significant difference which means that UMT!"" should not a priori cause moreinterference than M!""'

M*3 has been deployed in many European countries although e+perience with uncoordinated use ad&acent to the lowestE*M fre:uencies is limited'

0ased on the comparison of out*of*band emissions between M!"" and UMT!"" a 2'% M,- carrier separationbetween UMT carrier and the nearest M*3 carrier is a priorisufficient to ensure the protection of M*3 based on theaboe approach'

3.2.3 Interference analysis with M#% approach

3.2.3.1 Introduction

This section deals with the interference analysis between UMT!"" and M*3 using an MC4 (Minimum Coupling 4oss)approach' The interference analysis described in this section coers both in*band bloc.ing and out*of*band bloc.ing'

3.2.3.2 Interference analysis results

6'2'6'2'$ ut-of-band emissions

Using the out*of*band emission figures (UMT 0 Pma+ out*of*band emission cure) described in ection 6'2'2 thee+clusion distances hae been calculated with an MC4 approach for the protection of M*3'

6'2'6'2'2 Interference analysis results

UMTS BS -o GSM4R MS

The calculations are proided in Anne+ 2 Part A' Case $ (based on the ,ata*.umura model) shows that the interferencedistances for a M*3 M operating at minimum M*3 networ. design signal leel are 6'? .m for speech and 5'5 .mfor data in the highest M*3 channelN and $'% .m for speech and 2'2 .m for data in the fourth channel'

Een moing to beyond the fourth channel will gie interference distances of $'8 .m and $'! .m for speech and datarespectiely'

This problem can be reduced by the addition of filters in the UMT 0 howeer this is unli.ely to sole the problem forthe highest M*3 channel unless the filter response is ery sharp'

7t should be noted that no account has been ta.en of the effect of multiple UMT transmitters in these calculations'

Two alternatie calculations are gien as additional e+amples in Anne+ 2' n Case $bis the assumptions for the calculationare considered as more conseratie in order to address critical situations (including contribution of direct line of sight)'ne other e+ample of calculations is proided Part 0 of Anne+ 2 for the cases where the M*3 networ. is noise*limitedand interference*limited'

The bloc.ing performance of M*3 mobiles is defined in EB6""!$"' /or the M*3 M it is defined as *6% d0m for?""*%"" .,- carrier separation and this figure has been used below' ,oweer it should be noted that when the difference

between the centre of the M*3 and UMT channel is set at 2'% M,- (band edge separation of 2"" .,-) then theinterference will be in*band and a worse bloc.ing performance will be e+perienced'

As shown in Anne+ 2 * Part A Case 2 this e:uates to a distance of 52" m for the high power UMT 0' 7f the fadingmargin is ignored the bloc.ing distance rises to %6" m'

8/12/2019 ECCRep096

14/76


UMTS BS -o GSM4R BTS

Anne+ 2 * Part A Case 6 coers the bloc.ing of the M*3 0T by the high power UMT!"" 0T' This demonstratesthat bloc.ing will occur at a distance of ??5 m increasing to $'6 .m if the fading margin is ignored'

Anne+ 2 * Part A Case 5 shows that een a low power medium range UMT 0 in a micro*cellular deployment will causebloc.ing at distances of $

8/12/2019 ECCRep096

15/76


3.2.& Interference analysis with Monte-#arlo simulations

3.2.%.1 M!S*"" and GSM-R deployment and co-e0istence scenarios

6'2'5'$'$ GSM-R deployment scenario

M*3 networ.s offer a linear coerage of railway lines with bi*sector radio sites installed along the railway as shown infigure 6*8' The main system characteristics and networ. parameters are summari-ed in table 6*2'

3:?r* 42@ GSM4R ;*)o7*,- ."*,aro

Two ma&or characteristics of M*3 coerage are1 $) 4inear coerageN 2) ,igh :uality coerage (!8O space and timeaailability)' 7n Europe most M*3 networ.s are designed with a 0 antenna height of about 6" m and cell range isaround 8*? .m' The assumption of 0 antenna height at 58 m and cell range at % .m represents the worst case scenario forthe sharing study'

There are two types of M*3 M as described in table 6*21 2= handset M and %= train mounted M' As shown infigure 6*? below the M*3 %= train mounted M is the M that is located inside the train connected to the e+ternal Mantenna mounted on the roof top of the train'

3:?r* 46@ Co,,*"-o, (*-**, -ra, 7o?,-*; a,-*,,a a,; MS .-?a-*; ,.;* o+ -#* -ra,

BTSBTSBTS

8/12/2019 ECCRep096

16/76

ECC REPORT 96Page $?

6'2'5'$'2 M!S*"" deployment scenario

The main ob&ectie of UMT deployment in the !"" M,- band is for coerage e+tension but in urban areas thedeployment of UMT in the !"" M,- band can also improe tremendously the indoor coerage :uality' 7n rural areas thedeployment of UMT in the !"" M,- band allows mobile networ. operators to offer 6 serices at lower cost'

3:?r* 4%@ UMTS ,*-ork )ao?-

The typical UMT!"" deployment scenario considered in the sharing study with M*3 is the rural area deployment withcell range 293Q8""" m where the networ. layout is shown in figure 6*istance shift r

(rQd"#566")

eparation distance

d" (m)

" "

"'8 2$?8

$ 566"

Ta()* 46@ D.-a,"* (*-**, ra)a ),* a,; UMTS .-*.

The simulation was done with a :uasi*static Monte*Carlo simulator' UMT UEs are randomly distributed within theUMT!"" coerage area the reference UMT networ. uplin. and downlin. capacities are simulated without the presenceof M*3 networ.' The UMT uplin. capacity is obtained with the threshold of ? d0 noise rise corresponding to

8/12/2019 ECCRep096

17/76

ECC REPORT 96Page $ =C/IH9 ;B>

As shown in figure 6*$" at the operating point AC73Q8" d0 which corresponds to a carrier separation of 2'% M,- betweenthe UMT carrier and the nearest M*3 carrier the M*3 >4 outage probability is smaller than "'$8O for the worstcase when UMT sites are co*aligned with M*3 railway sites' =hen UMT sites are not on the railway trac. theinterference is een smaller' =hen the railway and UMT sites are separated by 2$?8 m M*3 >4 outage probability issmaller than "'"58O and when the separation distance is 566" m the M*3 >4 outage probability is below "'"$8O'

/rom the simulation results it can be considered that the interference from UMT >4 to M*3 >4 train*mounted M isunder acceptable leel and that no additional guard band is re:uired for the protection of M*3 >4' Thus UMT can bedeployed in the same geographical area with a carrier separation of 2'% M,- between the UMT carrier and the nearestM*3 carrier'/or the co*e+istence scenario between UMT!"" and M*3 described in section 6'2'5'$ and simulation assumptionsdescribed in section 6'2'5'2 simulations on the interference from UMT!"" >4 to M*3 >4 reception of train mountedM hae been performed with CEPT simulation tool EAMCAT 6 (;ersion 6'$'6?'2) for the thresholds of C#7Q! d0 and

C#7Q$2 d0 the simulation results are presented in figure 6*$"a' The considered carrier separation between UMT carrierand the nearest M*3 carrier is 2'% M,-'

The EAMCAT scenario file for this study is attached to this report (can be found at the website http1##www'ero'd.# ne+t tothe downloadable file of this report)'

8/12/2019 ECCRep096

22/76

ECC REPORT 96Page 22

Probability of simulated C/I on GSM-R DL

0

0"02

0"04

0"06

0"08

0"

0"2

0"4

0"6

0"8

0"2

0 265 4!!0

Separation distance between Railway line and UMS sites

Probability!"#

%&'()*+9 d, &.

%&'()*+2d, &.

3:?r* 410a@ Pro(a()- o+ .7?)a-*; C/I o, GSM4R DL ;?* -o ,-*r+*r*,"* +ro7 UMTS900 BS

The simulation results gien in the figure 6*$"a simulated with eamcat show that for the probability of C#7! d0 is

smaller than "'"2O and that of C#7$2 d0 is smaller than "'$O which is below the re:uired "'8O'

Additional studies hae been carried out in order to assess the worst*case situations corresponding to the M*3 deices atthe cell*edge' The considered carrier separation between UMT and nearest M is 2'% M,-'

Two distinct scenarios hae been inestigated' The first one is based on the scenario described in section 6'2'5'$ and6'2'5'2 in which the 0T antenna height is fi+ed at 58 m and the M*3 cell range is % .m' The distance between theM*3 0T and the M*3 train mounted M (,msQ5'8m) is randomly drawn between < and % .m for the differentsnapshots in order to simulate the situation in which the M*3 train mounted M is far from the sering base station andis at the cell edge' The figure below shows this worst case M*3 configuration simulated in eamcat'

" .m < .m % .m

M*3 deices

randomly drawn

3:?r* 410(@ Po.-o, o+ GSM4R -ra, 7o?,-*; MS r*)a-* -o -#* .*r,: BS

8/12/2019 ECCRep096

23/76


An additional scenario was also consideredN the antenna height is reduced to 28 m as well as the cell range to 8 .m' /orthis case the M*3 train mounted Ms are randomly distributed between 5 and 8 .m in order to simulate the situation inwhich the M*3 train mounted M is far from the sering base station and is close to the cell edge'

/or both scenarios the distance between UMT sites and M*3 railway is " i'e' the UMT 0 sites are placed along therailway' (see figure 6*% in section 6'2'5'$'6)'

The following table gies the simulated probability of interference from UMT!"" 0 to the M*3 train mounted Mwhen considering a C#7 ratio of respectiely ! d0 and $2 d0'

Antenna height Position of M*3Users

eparation distance betweenUMT 0 and 3ailway

C#7 (M*3 >4) Probability ofinterference

58 m

8/12/2019 ECCRep096

24/76


As described in the aboe section M*3 U4 power control is actiated in the simulations' The simulated M*3 trainmounted M T+ power distribution is plotted in figure 6*$2' 7t can be seen that only "'8O of M transmit at ma+imum

power of 6! d0m'

R-GSM MS $ Power Distribution !$P%&P'#

96

96"5

97

97"5

98

98"5

99

99"5

00

5 7 9 ! 5 7 9 2 2! 25 27 29 ! !! !5 !7 !9

$ Power P' !d(m#

Probability!$P%&P'#!"#

3:?r* 41$@ S7?)a-*; GSM4R -ra, 7o?,-*; MS TF o*r ;.-r(?-o,

7f M*3 U4 power control is not actiated all M*3 train mounted M will transmit at ma+imum power of 6! d0m'/or the case of UMT sites being placed aligned with the railway trac. or close to the railway trac. the impact on UMTU4 capacity loss due to interference from M*3 train mounted M could become much more important' 7n that caseUMT operators may need to ta.e care of that problem by using site engineering solutions to reduce the potentialinterference from M*3 U4 when the UMT networ. is using the 8 M,- channel ad&acent to M*3 band'

3.2.%.& )nalysis summary

Under the assumptions described aboe the Monte*Carlo simulation results show that the impact on M*3 >4 by thepotential interference from UMT >4 is ery low and a carrier separation of 2'% M,- between the UMT!"" carrier andthe nearest M*3 carrier should be enough' =hen M*3 U4 power is used the simulation results indicate theUMT!"" networ. capacity loss is below 8O een though some of the UMT!"" cells near the railway trac. will haemore capacity loss than other cells' 7n the case where M*3 uplin. power control is not used the simulation results showthat much more capacity loss on UMT U4 can occur especially for the cells located near the railway trac.'

3.2.' #onclusions

0ased on the co*e+istence scenarios between UMT!"" and M*3 the simulation assumptions described in section6'2'5 and the simulation results and analysis on M*3 >4 outage probability and UMT U4 capacity loss the followingconclusions can be made1

UMT!"" can be deployed in the same geographical area in co*e+istence with M*3 as follows1

$) There is a priori no need of an additional guard band between UMT!"" and M*3 a carrier separation of 2'%M,- or more between the UMT!"" carrier and the nearest M*3 carrier is sufficient without pre&udice to


2) ,oweer for some critical cases (e'g' with high located antenna open and sparsely populated areas sered by highpower UMT 0 close to the railway trac.s bloc.ing etc which would lead to assumption of possible direct line ofsight coupling) the MC4 calculations demonstrate that coordination is needed for a certain range of distances (up to 5.m or more from railway trac.)'

6) 7t is beneficial to actiate M*3 uplin. power control especially for the train mounted M otherwise the impact

on UMT U4 capacity could be important when the UMT networ. is using the 8 M,- channel ad&acent to the M*3 band' ,oweer it has to be recogni-ed that this is only applicable in low speed areas as elsewhere the use of uplin.control in M*3 will cause significantly increased call drop out rates'

8/12/2019 ECCRep096

25/76


5) 7n order to protect M*3 operations UMT operators should ta.e care when deploying UMT in the !"" M,-band where site engineering measures and#or better9 filtering capabilities (proiding additional coupling loss in orderto match the re:uirements defined for the critical#specific cases) may be needed in order to install UMT sites close tothe railway trac. when the UMT networ. is using the 8 M,- channel ad&acent to the M*3 band'

9 Currently the out*of band interference leel is gien by 6PP T 28'$"5 ;MA PAM3 H%I'The main C>MA PAM3 system characteristics are summari-ed in tables 6*$" to 6*$8'

CDMA PAMR

/re:uency band (U4) (M,-) %

8/12/2019 ECCRep096

26/76

ECC REPORT 96Page 2?

/or f =ithin the 3ange Applicability Emission 4imit

8/12/2019 ECCRep096

27/76

ECC REPORT 96Page 2MAPAM3 or TET3A) >4 fre:uency bloc. (!$8*!2$ M,-) at the fre:uency !$8 M,-' The worst interference scenario

between UMT!"" uplin. and PM3#PAM3 system downlin. (C>MA PAM3 or TET3A) could potentially happen ataround !$8 M,-'

ECC 3eport %2 (section 6'8'8'6) H$I indicated that UMT outdoor UE transmitting power is relatiely small at !"Opercentile the simulated outdoor UE transmit power is *22'5 d0m' 0y considering that the minimum coupling loss betweenUE and PM3#PAM3 0 is relatiely large (%" d0 is used in ECC 3eport %2 between UE and 0 in rural area) compared tothe MC4 between UMT 0 and M*3 Train Mounted M and since the UE is moing the interference from UMT

UE to PM3#PAM3 0 should not be a problem' /or detailed analysis of interference between UMT UE and PM3#PAM30 Monte*Carlo simulations should be performedN this is not coered in this report'

The worst interference case is the interference from PM3#PAM3 0 to UMT 0 as shown in figure 6*$6'

3.3.2.1 'otential interference between M!S*"" and #+M) ')MR at *1& MAD

7nterference from C>MA PAM3 0 operating between !$MA*PAM3 0 can desensiti-e UMT!"" 0 receier if theprotection is not sufficient'

UMT!"" system parameters are described in ECC 3eport %2H$I' The interference protection leel for UMT!"" 0receier is *$$" d0m#6'%5 M,- and the AC of UMT!"" 0 receier is 5?'2 d0'

0ased on the C>MA PAM3 0 spectrum mas. for band class $2 gien in tables 6*$$ and 6*$2 for a guard band of "'?

M,- between a UMT!"" carrier below !$8 M,- and a C>MA PAM3 carrier aboe !$8 M,- the re:uired MC4between UMT!"" 0 and C>MA PAM3 0 is !8'? d0' =hen using a free space propagation model the space

'DM/-%/MR900UMTS900

'DM/-%/MR900UMTS900

8/12/2019 ECCRep096

29/76

ECC REPORT 96Page 2!

separation between UMT!"" 0 and C>MA PAM3 0 antennas is in the order of % .m' ,oweer when using the ,atapropagation model the separation distance becomes $'8 .m'

60

70

80

90

00

06 2 ! 4

Guard band !M)*#

MC

3:?r* 41@ R*?r*; MCL =;B> , +?,"-o, o+ :?ar; (a,;

The re:uired MC4 as function of guard band is gien in figure 6*$5' 7t indicates the re:uired MC4 decreases when the

guard band becomes larger'Two possible solutions can be used to meet the re:uired MC4 between UMT!"" 0 and C>MA PAM3 01 a) paceseparationN b) e+ternal filter'

3.3.2.2 'otential interference between M!S*"" and !,!R) at *1& MAD

The ad&acent compatibility study between M!"" and TET3A or TAP at !$8 M,- was described in ECC 3eport 8 H!Ishowing that without any guard band or other interference mitigation techni:ues interference from TET3A#TAP 0 willdesensiti-e M!"" 0 receiers' 7n order to protect the M!"" 0 receier operating below !$8 M,- seeralinterference mitigation techni:ues were recommended in ECC 3eport 8 for the protection of M!"" 0 receiers suchas guard band filters and#or coordination between operators'

The interference analysis method described in ECC 3eport 8 can be re*used for the interference analysis between

UMT!"" and TET3A systems operating below and aboe !$8 M,- respectiely by considering that UMT!"" 0 ismore sensitie to interference than M!"" the ma+imum tolerable interference leel for the protection of UMT 0receier is of *$$" d0m#6'%5 M,-' 0y applying the interference analysis method described in ECC 3eport 8 similarconclusions can be made that without interference mitigation techni:ues there will be serious interference from aTET3A#TAP 0 transmitter to UMT!"" 0' Thus UMT!"" 0 receiers will be desensiti-ed due to stronginterference from TET3A#TAP' The following interference mitigation techni:ues can be used to reduce the interferencefrom TET3A#TAP to UMT!"" 01

i) uard bandN

ii) E+ternal filtersN

iii) patial separation by coordination between UMT!"" and TET3A#TAP operatorsN

i) 3educed transmitting power of TET3A#TAP 0'

3.3.3 #onclusions

The interference from PM3#PAM3 (C>MA PAM3 TET3A TAP) 0 operating at fre:uencies aboe !$8 M,- willcause receier desensiti-ation of UMT!"" 0 operating below !$8 M,-' 7n order to protect UMT!"" 0 the utili-ationof interference mitigation techni:ues is necessary1

$) 3educed PM3#PAM3 0 T+ powerN

2) patial separation by coordination between operatorsN

6) E+ternal filtersN

5) uard band'

7t is more li.ely that a combination of these interference mitigation techni:ues should be used in order to ensure thecompatibility between UMT!"" operating below !$8 M,- and PM3#PAM3 (C>MA PAM3 TET3A TAP) operatingaboe !$8 M,-'

8/12/2019 ECCRep096

30/76

ECC REPORT 96Page 6"

Co7a-()- .-?; (*-**, UMTS900 a,; DME

3.&.1 !M* and UMS system characteristics

Protection criteria for the aeronautical radionaigation serice

The protection criteria for the aeronautical radionaigation serice are e+tracted from 3ecommendation 7TU*3 M'$?6!'

3ecommendation 7TU*3 M'$?6! gies the e:uialent power flu+*density (EP/>) leel which protects stations of theaeronautical radionaigation serice (A3B) from emissions of radionaigation satellites of all radionaigation*satelliteserice (3B) systems operating in the $ $?5*$ 2$8 M,- band'

7t recommends that the ma+imum allowable epfd leel from all space stations of all 3B systems should not e+ceed G$2$'8 d0(=#(m2W M,-)) in order to protect the A3B in the band $ $?5*$ 2$8 M,-'

The instantaneous epfd is calculated using the following formula1

= =

a i':

i ma0r

ir

i

it

G

G

d

Gepfd

$

)(

5

)($"log$"

2$"

$"5,uation 1

where1

:a1 number of space stations that are isible from the receieri1 inde+ of the space station considered

'i1 3/ power at the input of the antenna (or 3/ radiated power in the case of an actie antenna) of thetransmitting space station (d0(=#M,-))

i1 off*a+is angle between the boresight of the transmitting space station and the direction of thereceier

Gt(i) 1 transmit antenna gain (as a ratio) of the space station in the direction of the receier

di1 distance (m) between the transmitting station and the receier

i1 off*a+is angle between the pointing direction of the receier and the direction of the transmittingspace station

Gr(i) 1 receie antenna gain (as a ratio) of the receier in the direction of the transmitting space station

(see 3ecommendation 7TU*3 M'$5%")Grma01 ma+imum gain (as a ratio) of the receierepfd1 instantaneous epfd (d0(=#(m2W M,-))) at the receier

8/12/2019 ECCRep096

31/76

ECC REPORT 96Page 6$

The ma+imum allowable aggregated EP/> leels for protecting A3B are summari-ed in table 6*2"'

Para7*-*r 'a)?* R*+*r*,"*

$>ME 3B interference threshold

(at antenna port)G$2! d0(=#M,-) (ee Bote $)

2

Ma+imum >ME#TACAB antenna

gain including polari-ationmismatch

6'5 d0i (8'5 d0i antenna gainG2 d0 polari-ation mismatch)

6Effectie area of " d0i antenna at

$ $

8/12/2019 ECCRep096

32/76


where 1

:a1 number of UMT !"" base stations that are isible from the receier (>ME)

i1 inde+ of the base station considered

'i1 3/ power at the input of the antenna the transmitting UMT !"" base station (d0(=#M,-))

F 1 wae length

i1 off*a+is angle between the boresight of the transmitting UMT !"" base station and the directionof the receier (>ME)

Gt(i) 1 transmit antenna gain of the base station in the direction of the receier (>ME)

di1 distance (m) between the transmitting base station and the receier

i1 off*a+is angle between the pointing direction of the receier and the direction of the transmittingUMT !"" base station

Gr(i) 1 receie antenna gain of the receier (>ME) in the direction of the transmitting UMT !"" basestation

'S+1 instantaneous P> (d0(=#(M,-))) at the receier (>ME)

7t has to be noted that the threshold aboe was established by measurement of a number of >ME airborne receiers(interrogator receier) under arious signal conditions and confirmed that the effect of an 3B signal when spread oer $M,- had the same effect on the >ME receier as does C=' As the >ME specification re:uires correct performance in the

presence of C= at *$2! d0(=#M,-) this was gien as the appropriate ma+imum leel for all 3B interference'

The same assumption was made when modelling the effect of the interference from UMT!"" on >ME' This is &ustifiedby the nature of the UMT!"" signal (=*C>MA spread signal)'

S*- o+ DME ara7*-*r.

G /re:uency of band of operation1 !?"*$2$8 M,-

G 3eceiing fre:uency (in the simulation) 1 !?2 !?5 !?? and !ME antenna gain 1 8'5 d0i

G Channeli-ation1 $ M,-

G 0andwidth 1 $ M,-

G A3B station location1 the A3B station altitude should be ta.en at worst case (5" """ ft i'e' $2 $!2 m) whichgies ma+imum isibility of potentially interfering base stations from the A3B receiing antenna'

G >ME electiity mas.1

o DME $ Ro"k*)) Co)),. T#* a--*,?a-o,. ar*

? d0 at *"'6% M,-#K"'62 M,- (*"'%% M,-#K"'%2 M,- from the central fre:uency)2" d0 at *"'88 M,-#K"'5! M,- (*$'"8 M,-#K"'!! M,- from the central fre:uency)5" d0 at *"'%" M,-#K"'?2 M,- (*$'6" M,-#K$'$2 M,- from the central fre:uency)?" d0 at *"'!? M,-#K"'?5 M,- (*$'5? M,-#K$'$5 M,- from the central fre:uency)

o KN 6$A 5o,**)) T#* a--*,?a-o,. ar*

? d0 at *"'$8 M,-#K"'65 M,- (*"'?8 M,-#K"'%5 M,- from the central fre:uency)2" d0 at *"'2? M,-#K"'5% M,- (*"'

8/12/2019 ECCRep096

33/76


ARNS a,-*,,a "#ara"-*r.-".

The information in the following /ig' $8(a)'a is e+tracted from 3ecommendation 7TU*3 M'$?52 and proides the antennagain for different eleation angles' /or intermediate eleation angles (between two defined alues) a linear interpolationshould be used' The Grma0alue is 8'5 d0i as specified in 3ecommendation 7TU*3 M'$?6!' 7t is assumed that the eleation

and gain pattern is the same for all a-imuth angles'The releant range of eleation angles for the study to be conducted is1 *!"RY"R as shown in /ig' $8(a)'

EF-ra"- +ro7 R*"

ITU4R M16$

E)*a-o, a,:)* ;*+,-o,

E)*a-o,

a,:)*

=;*:r**.>

A,-*,,a :a,

Gr/Gr!ma+=;B>

G!" G$@ DME a,-*,,a :a, +or *)*a-o, a,:)*. (*-**, 0490

Proo.*; ara7*-*r. +or UMTS 900

Therefore the scenario worth studying is the situation where multiple base stations produce interference to onboard>ME1

G Antenna input Power1 56 d0m#channel (for Macro base stations)' Micro and pico base stations hae not beenconsidered' 7t has to be noted that this figure represents a fully loaded cell'

G Aerage cell radius 1 8 .mG Unwanted emissions characteristics 1 see Table 6'22 belowG Channel pacing 1 8 M,-

G Ma+imum antenna gain including the feeder loss 1 $8 d0iG 3eceier 0andwidth 1 6%5" J,-G Eleation antenna pattern 1 3ecommendation 7TU*3 /'$66?*2G A-imuth antenna pattern 1 omni*directionalG >owntilt 1 2'8RG Antenna height 1 6" m

/or information a comparison between the out*of*band emissions of UMT*!"" and M !"" is aailable in section6'2'2'2'

"R

*!"R

8/12/2019 ECCRep096

34/76


3r*?*," o++.*-

-o -#* UMTS

"*,-ra) +r*?*,"

Po*r ;*,.- ="a(,*- o?-?-> Po*r

, 2 M5

L**) , ;B"

ut of banddomain

2'8 M,- f D 2'@ S"*,aro o+ -#* .-?;

The principles are1

To distribute the base stations on the terrestrial dome seen by the >ME (placed eery $" .m)N To assess the aggregated signal generated by signals from the base stations at f$ f2and f6N To compare this aggregated signal to the threshold of *$5$ d0(=#M,-)'

3.&.3 Interference analysis results

Ca)"?)a-o, o+ -#* ACIR

The UMT!"" AC43 and >ME AC are plotted in figure 6*$?(a) AC73 of >ME as function of fre:uency separation andas guard band are respectiely gien in figures 6*$? (b) and (c)'

0T 1 f$

f2 f

6

0T 1 f$

f2 f

6

0T 1 f$

f2 f

6

0T 1 f$

f2 f

6

0T 1 f$

f2 f

6

0T 1 f$

f2 f

6

0T 1 f$

f2 f

6

0T 1 f$

f2 f

6

0T 1 f$ f2 f6

>ME

0T 1 f$ f2 f6

8/12/2019 ECCRep096

36/76


=a> UMTS900 ACLR a,; DME ACS

=(> ACIR a. +?,"-o, o+ +r*?*," .*ara-o,

8/12/2019 ECCRep096

37/76

ECC REPORT 96Page 6ME airborne receiers has been measured' ,oweer the characteristics of the receiingfilter are only gien for the range "'8*$'8 M,- from the central fre:uency' ne can easily assume that the filtercontinues to decrease after this alue but in the absence of data the filter has been considered as flat after thesealues'

The parameters of the UMT e:uipment are based on the 6PP standards e+cept for the base station antennapattern which is based on the 3ecommendation 7TU*3 /'$66?*2'

The results depend on the altitude of the aircraft' There is a difference of around 6 d0 between the low altitudes($""mDAltitudeD8""m and the cruise situations ($2""" m)'

The results are nearly the same for the two >ME e:uipments considered'

ien the data which hae been ta.en into account (and e+pressed in the preious paragraphs) some additionalisolation (to satisfy the interference criteria) may be needed to ma.e the compatibility between UMT!"" and>ME possible and particularly if the >ME fre:uency is below !

8/12/2019 ECCRep096

40/76


Ta()* 4$@ a;;-o,a) 7ar:, ,**;*; =;B>

7t has to be noted that certain factors or parameters relating to the deployment and#or the definition of the UMT!""system are not stabili-ed yet' These factors#parameters are1

A traffic load factor1 The global load is referring to the distribution of traffic load within the UMT networ.' Eenwhen considering the pea. of traffic a minority of UMT 0 is fully loaded and is transmitting at Pma+' The

operators and manufacturers hae confirmed the consideration of a traffic load factor for the design of theirnetwor.s' The ma+imum alue for a loaded cell is assumed to be %"O whereas an aerage alue is 8"O'

7t is recogni-ed that a safety aeronautical system such as >ME has to e+amine the worst case in terms ofinterference for UMT!"" when the number of UMT!"" cells considered is low (i'e' when the altitude of theaircraft is low)' ,oweer when the altitude of the aircraft is higher it is reasonable to consider the aerage loadfactor alue (because the number of the base stations considered is high)' ien the number of isible basestations as shown in the following figure1

it may be assumed that the aerage alue can be applied from an altitude of $""m ($8" base stations seenby an aircraft)1

;alue of the traffic load factor

Altitude of the aircraft D$""m %"O

Altitude of the aircraft $""m 8"O

8/12/2019 ECCRep096

41/76


Ma+imum antenna gain of the UMT!"" base stations1 The alue of $8 d0i (including feeder loss) has beenconsidered which corresponds to the rural case' ,oweer it is recogni-ed that the antennas deployed in urbanareas hae commonly a gain of $2 d0i (including feeder loss)' The ratio of one antenna type compared to the otherone is currently not defined'

7t has also to be noted that if certain parameters are ad&usted according to the preious bullets those ad&ustments hae to beconsistent (E'g 1 a rural case could correspond to an antenna gain of $8 d0i including feeder loss associated to a low trafficload)'

7t should be emphasi-ed that there may be a need for additional calculations to model the approach phase (or other phase)when an aircraft rolls' 7n this configuration the ma+imum gain of the >ME (reception) corresponds to an eleation angle of*2"#*28R (see table 6*22)'

7t should also be noted that no compatibility study between M!"" and systems operating in ad&acent band had beenperformed prior to the deployment of M!""' This has not been represented a problem so far since the aeronauticale:uipments do not currently use the part of the band &ust aboe !?" M,-1

The lowest fre:uency used by >ME is !ME

below ! system does not operate inthe lower part of the band (!?"*!??'8 M,-)N therefore the apportionment margin can be reduced' This reductionhas not been considered in the aboe calculations' The appropriate alue of the apportionment is 6 d0 if theinterferences to >ME are assumed to e:ually come from UMT!"" and the potential /3 system (/utur 3adioystem) considered under the agenda item $'? of the =3C*"

8/12/2019 ECCRep096

42/76


0efore the deployment of the /3system (before 2"2")

After the deployment of the /3system (before 2"2")

!?" G !??'8 M,- Apportionment Q " d0 Apportionment Q 6 d0

7n the upper part of the band (!??'8 G !) KF (/3) KF (UMT!"") Q$

FQ"'5!OQ 6'$ d0

=hich gies10efore the deployment of the /3system (before 2"2")

After the deployment of the /3system (before 2"2")

!??'8 *!

8/12/2019 ECCRep096

43/76


2 Co7a-()- .-?; (*-**, UMTS900 a,; MIDS

3.'.1 System parameters and co-e+istence scenario

3.&.1.1 >reuency band plan

The fre:uency band plans for M7> and UMT!"" are shown in figure below1

%%" !$8 !28 !?" !?! $2"?

UMTS900

Mobile stationtransmit

UMTS900

0ase stationtransmit

MIDS

Terminalsreceie

UMT!"" fre:uency band is arranged as follows1

G Uplin. (UE transmit 0 receie) 1 %%" G !$8 M,-G >ownlin. (0 transmit UE receie) 1 !28*!?" M,-G Carrier separation1 8 M,-

M7> fre:uency band is arranged as follows1M7> operates in the !?" to $2$8 M,- band with M7> fre:uencies occurring eery 6 M,- between !?!to $2"? M,-' Two sub*bands centered on $"6" M,- and $"!" M,- are e+cluded because they are used by7//'

3.&.1.2 System parameters

6'8'$'2'$ UMT!"" parameters

The characteristics of UMT!"" system are summari-ed in the table6'28 below'

Para7*-*r IMT4$000 CDMA Dr*"- Sr*a; =UMTS900>

Carrier spacing 8 M,- n "'2 M,-

>uple+ method />>

Cell type Macro Micro Pico

Transmitter power d0m(6) 56 6% 25

Antenna gain(5) (8)(d0i#$2"sector) $8 (?) 8 "

Cable loss 6 $ "

Antenna height (m) 5" 8 $'8

Tilt of antenna (degrees down) 2'8 " "

Access techni:ues C>MA

>ata rates supported Pedestrian1 6%5 .bit#s ;ehicular1 $55 .bit#s 7ndoors1 2 Mbit#s

,igher data rates up to $" Mbit#s are supported by technologyenhancements (,>PA)

Modulation type PJ

Emission bandwidth 6PP T28'$"5

Transmitter AC43 for macro#micro# pico 0 6PP T28'$"5

$st ad&acent 58 d0 Z 8 M,-

2nd ad&acent 8" d0 Z $" M,-

Transmitter spurious emissions 6PP T28'$"53eceier bloc.ing leels 6PP T28'$"5

8/12/2019 ECCRep096

44/76


Ta()* $2@ UMTS900 (a.* .-a-o, ara7*-*r.

(6) May not be appropriate for all scenarios'(5) /eeder losses are not included in the alues and should be considered in the sharing#compatibility issues'(8) The reference pattern is specified in 3ecommendation 7TU*3 /'$66? with (4="'2)'(?) Cable loss is included in the antenna gain'

7n order to hae a realistic representation of UMT!"" e:uipments two types of cells hae been considered1 macro andmicro1

Ma"ro C*)) M"ro C*))

Transmission power K56 d0m (2"=) K6%d0m (?6=)

Cable loss 6d0 (included in antenna gain) $d0

Antenna gain $8d0i ($2"R sector) 8d0i (omni*directional or directie)

P73E 8%d0m 52d0m

Antenna height 5"m 8m

;ertical aperture ?R

>owntilt 28R "R

/or micro cell and macro cells unwanted emission limits in the out*of band domain and in the spurious domain are definedbelow1

3 LIMIT

ut of band domain $stad&acent channel [ 8 M,- %& d9c

2ndad&acent channel [ $" M,- &" d9c

purious domain

(in accordance with 7TU*3 M62!)

0etween !?"M,- and $ ,- *6?d0m in $"".,-

or*$! d0m in 8 M,-

0etween $,- and $2 ,- *6"d0m in $M,-or *26 d0m in 8 M,-

ther assumptions ta.en in the study1

Emission fre:uency of the base station1 !8 receier to consider is theM7> terminal integrated in a shelter' The antenna is mounted on a $? metres mast' The terminal mode to consider is thefre:uency hopping mode (8$ fre:uencies)' The lowest fre:uency is !?! M,-'

8/12/2019 ECCRep096

45/76


R*"**r MIDS -*r7,a)

0andwith 8 M,-

/eeder loss 8 d0Antenna gain ! d0iAntenna height $? metresE:uialent downtilt K 6R6 d0 beam width in theertical plane

$?R

,ori-ontal plan omniTa()* $6@ MIDS -*r7,a) ara7*-*r.

3:?r* 419@ MIDS -*r7,a) *)*a-o, a,-*,,a ;a:ra7

MIDS -*r7,a)

a,-*,,a

"

$"

2"

6"

5"

8"

?"

Ga9,

=9,>

$""" M,- $$"" M,- $2"" M,-

8/12/2019 ECCRep096

46/76


Other assumptions taken in the study:

The fre:uency used in the simulation is ! terminal performances as long as the power of thetransmitter remains below *$" d0m (the reference is a C= signal)'

Boise leel permissible in the M7> channel1 criterion nR2

n the same line as in the preious paragraph measurements on M7> receier gie a permissible noise leel e:ualto *$"6d0m for one of the 8$ channels i'e' *$"5 d0m#8 M,- ta.ing into account $d0 margin

This tolerated alue allows to obtain an acceptable M7> sensitiity referred to M7> (ystem egmentpecification)'

7nterference threshold e+pressed as an interfered fre:uencies rate

The M7> receier can tolerate a certain number of interfered channels amongst the 8$ channels used without anyperformance degradation' This threshold is classified and is not gien in this document' This interference thresholdwithout being communicated in the report for security reason is coered by the criterion nR2 when assessing the

number of fre:uencies for which the permissible noise floor is e+ceeded'

8/12/2019 ECCRep096

47/76

ECC REPORT 96Page 5 studies in /rance as well as in UA (BT7A)'

3.&.1.% Simulation confiuration

The simulation configuration is gien in the figure 6*2" below'

3:?r* 4$0@ I))?.-ra-o, o+ -#* .7?)a-o, "o,+:?ra-o,

3.'.2 I,-*r+*r*,"* a,a).. a,; .7?)a-o, r*.?)-.

3.&.2.1 $e6el of the M!S*"" sinal recei6ed by the MI+S terminal 5out of the MI+S recei6in band

The aim of this section is to assess the interference from the UMT!"" base station in the UMT!"" band according the"r-*ro, ,1described aboe'

UMT base station

antenna

>istance between the M7> terminal andthe UMT base station

Antenna height

M7> terminal

8/12/2019 ECCRep096

48/76

ECC REPORT 96Page 5%

6'8'2'$'$ imulation results

Macro cell

The following cures gie the leel of the UMT!"" signal as a function of the distance between the UMT!"" base

station and the M7> terminal1

3:?r* 4$1@ MACRO (a.* .-a-o, -ra,.7--*; o*r r*"**; ( -#* MIDS -*r7,a) =;.-a,"*1k7>

3:?r* 4$$@ MACRO (a.* .-a-o, -ra,.7--*; o*r r*"**; ( -#* MIDS -*r7,a) =;.-a,"*2k7>

A,a)..@

=hateer the distance between the UMT!"" base station and the M7> terminal is the ma+imum authori-ed leel of *$"

d0m is not e+ceeded' Ma+imum leel e:ual to *2$d0m is reached for a distance from 2""m to 2%"m' Micro cellThe following cures gie the leel of the UMT!"" signal as a function of the distance between the UMT!""

8/12/2019 ECCRep096

49/76


3:?r* 4$@ MICRO (a.* .-a-o, -ra,.7--*; o*r r*"**; ( -#* MIDS -*r7,a) =;.-a,"*1k7>

A,a)..@

The leel of *$" d0m is neer reached' Ma+imum leel e:ual to *6%d0m is reached for a distance of $?"m'

6'8'2'$'2 Conclusion according to criterion nR$

Considering the protection cures of M7> receier there is no ris. of saturation caused by UMT signal'

3.&.2.2 $e6el of the M!S*"" sinal recei6ed by the MI+S terminal 5in the MI+S recei6in band

The aim of this section is to assess the interference from the UMT!"" base station in the UMT!"" band according the"r-*ro, ,$ described aboe'The out*of band and spurious emissions of the UMT!"" are considered in this section'

6'8'2'2'$ UMT!"" 0 unwanted emissions

UMT!"" Macro*cell (Power Q 56 d0m e'i'r'p' Q 8%d0m)

UMTS900 Transmission

band

Level in dBc in

5 MHz

e.i.r.p. in dBm in 5

MHz

MIDS channels impacted

965 970 MHz 50 dBc +8 dBm 969 MHz (1 channel)

970 MHz to 1 GHz (62dBc) -4 dBm 972 to 999 MHz (10 channels)

1 GHz to 12,75 GHz (66dBc) -8 dBm 1002 to 1206MHz (40 channels)

3:?r* 4$@ UMTS900 BS ?,a,-*; *7..o, =7a"ro "*))>

8/12/2019 ECCRep096

50/76


UMT!"" Micro*cell (Power Q 6% d0m e'i'r'p' Q 52d0m)

Transmission band Level in dBc in 5

MHz

e.i.r.p. in dBm in

5MHz

MIDS channels impacted

965 970 MHz 50 dBc -8 dBm 969 MHz (1 channel)

970 MHz to 1 GHz (57dBc) -15 dBm 972 to 999 MHz (10 channels)

1 GHz to 12,75 GHz (61dBc) -19 dBm 1002 to 1206MHz (40 channels)

6'8'2'2'2 Application of the criterion nR2

The tolerated leel of *$"5 d0m for the noise floor was settled aboe' This leel is applicable to each hopping fre:uency'The UMT mas.s as e+pressed in section 6'8'2'2'$ generate the following categori-ation1

The fre:uency !?! M,- ($ M7> channel)

The fre:uencies from ! channels)

The fre:uencies from $""" to $2"? M,- (5" M7> channels)

This gies four cases to consider1

Case $1 none of the M7> channels are interfered Case 21 $ M7> channel is interfered

Case 61 $$ M7> channel are interfered

Case 51 8$ M7> channel are interfered

As stated aboe the permissible interfered fre:uency rate is not gien in the document but it is possible to say that1

* the M7> terminal is not affected in the cases $ and 2'

* the M7> terminal communication performance is acceptable in case 6 but the ability to tolerate additional intentional

or non*intentional interfere is reduced1 M7> electronic anti*&amming performances are degraded'

* the M7> terminal performance is degraded in case 5' The &am threshold is between $$ and 8$ interfered channels'

Unwanted emission of UMS base station

-!0

-20

-0

0

0

20

!0

40

50

960 970 980 990 000 00 020 0!0 040 050

+re,uency !M)*#

Powerind(m/-M)*

%1er 3 4! d, - M/'R ce

8/12/2019 ECCRep096

51/76


6'8'2'2'6 Conclusion according to the criterion nR2

Bote1 it is considered that M7> is more often deployed in rural and suburban areasN so the only case studied belowcorresponds to the UMTmacro*cell'

The ma+imum calculated alue of UMT signal (macro*cell) for the fre:uency !?" M,- is *2$ d0m at the input of theM7> receier terminal' The corresponding distance is from 2"" to 2%" metres' This gies (based on the section 8'$'$)1

A leel of * channel

A leel of *%6 d0m#8 M,- in the $" following M7> channel

A leel of *%< d0m#8M,- for the rest of the M7> channels'

=hateer the channel is the threshold of the noise leel of *$"5 d0m#8M,- is e+ceeded' To respect this leel of *$"5

d0m#8M,-1

* for the $" channels in the !' ,oweer as mentioned preiously performance degradation is tolerated in this fre:uency

range'

* for the highest 5" channels an additional isolation of $< d0 is necessary'

6'8'2'2'5 Minimum separation distance for the protection of M7>

7f we consider an UMT spurious leel of *$"5d0m#8M,- in the $""" * $2"?M,- that means an UMT signal of*6%d0m (//d9c)1 the separation distance between UMT and M7> e:uialent to the necessary propagation loss can beread on figure 81 the minimum separation distance is 2.m'7f we consider an UMT spurious leel of *$"5d0m#8M,- in the ! is 6 .m'

6'8'2'2'8 ensitiity analysis on the UMT parameters

7t is li.ely that one of the most important assumptions in the study is the compliance of the unwanted (out*of*band and

spurious) emission of the UMT!"" base stations with the 6PP specifications' ne can assume that the e:uipments willhae better performances than their specifications without .nowing how'The preious section showed that in order to be certain to respect the criteria nR2 eery time for eery distance anadditional isolation of $< d0 (or 2$d0 if we consider the ! channel

A leel of *%< d0m for the rest of the M7> channels'

To respect this leel of *$"5 d0m for the highest 5" channels an additional isolation of $< d0 would be necessary'

8/12/2019 ECCRep096

52/76


A distance of 2"" metres would be sufficient if the spurious mas. of UMT!"" is $< d0 better than the specifications' Theadditional protection can be calculated function of the separation distance1

eparation>istance

4eel on M7>receier

4eel receied on the lastM7> fre:uencies

Additional protection

D2""

m

D*2$ d0m D*%< d0m $< d0

2""m

*2$ d0m *%< d0m $< d0

6""m

*22 d0m *%% d0m $? d0

5""m

*26 d0m *%! d0m $8 d0

8""m

*25 d0m *!" d0m $5 d0

?""m

*2? d0m *!2 d0m $2 d0

8/12/2019 ECCRep096

53/76


,oweer the aboe elements are based only on the information aailable to date about the performance of a base

station designed by a single manufacturer' 7t is important to ensure that the performances of other base stations would

also enable to draw the same conclusions'

3.'.3 Co,")?.o,.

This ad&acent band compatibility study between UMT!"" (operating below !?" M,-) and the M7> (operatingaboe !?! M,-) considers the impact of the main UMT!"" signal in its band (below !?" M,-) and the unwanted

emissions (aboe !?" M,-)' 7t shall be noted than the assessment of interferences from M7> on the UMT!"" has

not been ta.en into account in theses compatibility studies' 7n this conte+t it should be noted that this study does not

ta.e into account the regulatory status of T7>#M7> which operates in the band !?"*$2$8 M,- under the

conditions of proision 5'5 of the 3adio 3egulations'

To aoid any interference on each M7> fre:uency the protection distance between UMT!"" base station and M7>

stations should be up to 2 .m accordingly to the table of section 8'8'

,oweer the protection should be reduced if the real unwanted emission leel of the e:uipment is better than 6PP

specifications' To fully protect M7> without any protection distance the unwanted emission leel should be1

2$ d0 better than present 6PP specification in the ! band (corresponding to the $*

$2' can be tolerated1 this corresponds to interferences on the first $$

M7> channels' Conse:uently if there is an additional isolation of $< d0 aboe $ ,- no additional separation

distance is re:uired to protect the M7> receier'

7nformation aailable to date about the performance of a base station designed by a single manufacturer shows that

practical leel of unwanted emission proides isolation higher than the $< d0 re:uired according to section 6'8'2'2'?'

,oweer it will be important to ensure that the performances of other base stations which will be effectiely deployed

would also enable to proide the re:uired protection to M7>'

6 Co,")?.o,.

7n this chapter the compatibility studies between UMT!"" and systems operating in ad&acent bands including M*3PM3#PAM3 (TET3A C>MA PAM3 TAP) Aeronautical >ME M7> hae been described' 0ased on the interferencesanalysis the following conclusions can be made1

$) There isa priorino need of an additional guard band between UMT!"" and M*3 a carrier separation of 2'%M,- or more between the UMT!"" carrier and the nearest M*3 carrier is sufficient without pre&udice to


2) ,oweer for some critical cases (e'g' with high located antenna open and sparsely populated areas sered by high

power UMT 0 close to the railway trac.s bloc.ing etc which would lead to assumption of possible direct lineof sight coupling) the MC4 calculations demonstrate that coordination is needed for a certain range of distances(up to 5 .m or more from railway trac.)'

6) 7t is beneficial to actiate M*3 uplin. power control especially for the train mounted M otherwise the impacton UMT U4 capacity could be important when the UMT networ. is using the 8 M,- channel ad&acent to theM*3 band' ,oweer it has to be recogni-ed that this is only applicable in low speed areas as elsewhere the useof uplin. control in M*3 will cause significantly increased call drop out rates'

5) 7n order to protect M*3 operations UMT operators should ta.e care when deploying UMT in the !"" M,-band where site engineering measures and#or better9 filtering capabilities (proiding additional coupling loss inorder to match the re:uirements defined for the critical#specific cases) may be needed in order to install UMTsites close to the railway trac. when the UMT networ. is using the 8 M,- channel ad&acent to the M*3 band'

9 Currently the out*of band interference leel is gien by 6PP T 28'$"5 ;

8/12/2019 ECCRep096

54/76


8) Potential interference between UMT!"" 0 operating below !$8 M,- and PM3#PAM3 (C>MA PAM3TET3A TAP) 0 operating at fre:uencies aboe !$8 M,- could be a problem' 7n order to protect UMT!""0 the utili-ation of interference mitigation techni:ues is necessary1

) 3educed PM3#PAM3 0 T+ power

i) patial separation

ii) E+ternal filters

iii) uard band

8/12/2019 ECCRep096

55/76


The potential interference from UMT!"" to aeronautical >ME operating at fre:uencies aboe !MEoperating at fre:uencies between !?" and !ME

carriers and aircraft positions' The studies hae shown that the only mitigation techni:ues in order to ensure thecompatibility between the >ME system and UMT!"" that would bring sufficient isolation are1 additional filteringand a larger guard band' ,oweer these two mitigation techni:ues are not &udged applicable' Therefore the reportsuggests that a regulatory solution should be e+amined' 7t is necessary that a common approach be used within Europeto ensure the compatibility'

/urther compatibility study will be necessary if this fre:uency range is to be used by >ME systems or futureaeronautical systems addressed under =3C Agenda 7tem $'?'

8) The compatibility study between UMT!"" and M7> indicated that an additional margin of $< d0 of UMT!""0 spurious emissions oer the fre:uency range between $""" M,- and $2"? M,- in reference to 6PPtechnical specifications is re:uired for the protection of M7> terminal receier' 7nformation aailable to date

about the performance of a base station designed by a single manufacturer shows that practical leel of unwantedemission proides isolation higher than the $< d0 re:uired according to section 6'8'2'2'?' ,oweer it will beimportant to ensure that the performances of other base stations which will be effectiely deployed would alsoenable to proide the re:uired protection to M7>'

7t should be noted that all studies in section 6 assumed a UMT!"" base station antenna gain of $8 d0i (including feederloss)' A alue of $2d0i was howeer considered more realistic based on real networ. deployment' As a conse:uence theinterference is oerstated by 6d0'

COMPATIBILITY STUDY BETWEEN UMTS1800 AND SYSTEMS OPERATING IN ADJACENT BANDS

1 S.-*7. o*ra-,: , a;efense

1%1041%82 GSM1800 =UL>

UMTS1800 =UL>

$ECT

Ta()* 41@ S.-*7. o*ra-,: , a;

8/12/2019 ECCRep096

56/76


$ Co7a-()- .-?; (*-**, UMTS1800 a,; DECT

&.2.1 !*# system characteristics

Main >ECT system characteristics are summari-ed in tables 5*2 to 5*?'

DECT

/re:uency band (U4 \ >4) (M,-) $%%"*$!""

Carrier separation (M,-) $'

8/12/2019 ECCRep096

57/76

ECC REPORT 96Page 8ECT e:uipment to continue receiing in the presence of aninterfering signal on the same or different >ECT 3/ channel' =anted signal leel1 *

Ta()* 42@ C/I r*?r*7*,-

The 3/ carriers ]@^ shall include the three nominal >ECT 3/ carrier positions immediately outside each edge of the>ECT band'

3r*?*," =+> Co,-,?o?. a* ,-*r+*r*r )**) Co77*,-.

28 M,- f $

8/12/2019 ECCRep096

58/76

ECC REPORT 96Page 8%

UMTS 3DD 1800M5

>ownlin. band (M,-) $%"8*$%%"

Uplin. band (M,-) $ECT and UT3A*T>> has been described in E3C 3eport ?8 H$$I' The ad&acent band compatibility studybetween >ECT and >C$%"" was described in E3C 3eport 6$ H$8I and E3C 3eport $"" H$?I'

The aim is to assess the impact of >ECT on UMT />> $%""M,- >4 and ice ersa' The fre:uency band $%"" M,- currentlyused by M$%"" is enisaged for new UMT />> where the fre:uency plan will be1 $

8/12/2019 ECCRep096

59/76


=hen assessing the impact on UMT C>MA >4 calculations were done with EAMCAT 6 and conse:uently results aree+pressed in term of capacity losses and number of dropped users' /or the impact on >ECT mobiles the results aree+pressed in term of probability of interference'

The main parameters can be seen in Table 5*2' >ECT uses >ynamic Channel Allocation (>CA) to combat interference' 7ncase interference occurs on one channel >ECT has the ability to select another one without loss of communication' Toillustrate >CA in EAMCAT 6 the interfering fre:uency was set to an e:ual probability distribution of fre:uency between$%%" M,- and $!"" M,-' The distance between 3/P and PP was set to $"" m the common >ECT range indoor'

E3C 3eport ?8 describes the sharing study between UMT UT3A*T>> $!""*$!2" M,- and >ECT and the worst co*e+istence scenarios of that report hae been ta.en for this study' There are two main scenarios where >ECT interferes withUMT$%"" and when UMT$%"" interferes with >ECT' The list of co*e+istence scenarios is gien below1

a> I,-*r+*r*,"* +ro7 DECT -o UMTS1800

* >ECT >4 indoor on UMT $%"" >4 indoor

* >ECT U4 indoor on UMT $%"" >4 indoor

* >ECT >4 indoor on UMT $%"" >4 outdoor

* >ECT U4 indoor on UMT $%"" >4 outdoor

(> I,-*r+*r*,"* +ro7 UMTS1800 -o DECT

* UMT $%"" >4 indoor on >ECT >4 indoor

* UMT $%"" >4 indoor on >ECT U4 indoor

* UMT $%"" >4 outdoor on >ECT >4 indoor

* UMT $%"" >4 outdoor on >ECT U4 indoor

The characteristics of two types of 0 are used for two different cases of simulation for networ. UMT$%"" >4' /or thefirst case an aboe*roof macro 0T (=ide Area 0) with indoor UE and in the other case an indoor pico 0 (4ocal area0) with indoor UE'

&.2.& Interference analysis and simulation results

/or different co*e+istence interference analysis scenarios described aboe Monte*Carlo simulations with EAMCAT haebeen performed and summarised below'

i Interference from !*# R( to UMS 1/00 !%

UMS 1/00 indoor picocell !% as ictim

The simulation results of the interference from >ECT 3/P to indoor pico*cell UMT$%"" UE are gien in table 5*%'

>istance 3/P*UE i3 unwanted (d0m) i3 bloc.ing (d0m) Capacity loss (O)

8 m *$

These simulation results show that >ECT has ery limited impacts on UMT$%"" >4' 7n the case +,#! +$ on M!S18"" +$ indoor the capacity loss neer e+ceeds 5O and the number of dropped users neer e+ceeds 8O of the total users'

The difference between the >ECT >ownlin. and Uplin. is not ery releant because the ma+imum T+ power thesensitiity and antenna gain are the same for the >ECT 3/P and PP' o it can be assumed that there are no differences forthe simulations between >ECT >4 and >ECT U4' The results confirm this hypothesis' 0etween+,#! +$ on M!S 18""

+$indoor and+,#! $ on M!S 18"" +$indoor there is no difference the capacity loss of the UMT$%"" >4 neere+ceeds 5O'

8/12/2019 ECCRep096

60/76

ECC REPORT 96Page ?"

UMS 1/00 aboe roof macro cell

The simulation results of the interference from >ECT 3/P to macro*cell UMT$%"" >4 (indoor) are gien in table 5*!'

>istance 3/P*UE i3 unwanted (d0m) i3 bloc.ing (d0m) Capacity loss (O)

8m *26"'? *$!istance 0*PP i3 unwanted (d0m) i3 bloc.ing (d0m) 7nterference probability(O)

$"m *%$'% *

8/12/2019 ECCRep096

61/76

ECC REPORT 96Page ?$

These results show that so as not to e+ceed the interference probability of 8O the first base station must be at ECT building' Boting that such an occurrence is ery low in a rural enironment a separation distancefrom base stations to buildings using >ECT technology inside should not create any difficulty for UMT$%"" deployment'

&.2.' #onclusions

The simulation results described aboe for the defined co*e+istence scenarios between UMT$%"" and >ECT lead to the

following conclusions1

$) UMT$%"" macro*cells can be deployed in the same geographical area in co*e+istence with >ECT which is deployedinside of the buildings as the interference between >ECT 3/P and PP and macro*cellular UMT$%"" 0 and UE isnot a problemN

2) =hen pico*cellular UMT$%"" 0 is deployed inside of the building in co*e+istence with >ECT 3/P and PPdeployed in the same building indoor area some potential interference is li.ely to e+ist from indoor pico*cellularUMT$%"" 0 to >ECT if they are placed too close and they are operating in the ad&acent channel at $%%" M,-N

6) The following interference mitigation techni:ues could be used to address the potential interference from indoor pico*cellular UMT$%"" to indoor >ECT 3/P and PP when they are operating at the ad&acent fre:uency point of $%%"M,-N

a) pace separation between indoor pico*cell UMT$%"" 0 and >ECT 3/P or PP of ?8 m or moreN

b) E+ternal filter on indoor pico*cellular UMT$%"" 0N

c) Aoiding the ad&acent fre:uencies of $%%" M,- for indoor pico*cellular UMT$%"" 0 and >ECT or operate withreduced transmitting power if necessary'

7n term of interference analysis the >ECT system has the >CA (>ynamic Channel Allocation) mechanism which allows itto aoid efficiently an interfered channel e+cept if both systems are deployed indoors'

7ndeed although >ECT uses >CA interference analysis shows that in the case of UMT$%"" indoor pico*cellulardeployment with the fre:uency channel ad&acent to the >ECT fre:uency band the usage of some interference mitigationtechni:ue may be necessary to preent potential interference to indoor >ECT 3/P or PP'

,oweer in practice M$%"" deployment has demonstrated that no additional interference mitigation techni:ues are

really needed' This statement can be assumed to be e+tended to the compatibility between UMT$%"" and >ECT systems'

Co7a-()- "o,.;*ra-o, (*-**, UMTS1800 a,; METSAT

&.3.1 Main characteristics of M*S"

Meteorological satellite serice (pace to earth) system characteristics are described in 7TU*3 3ecommendation A'$$8%H$"I' The main system parameters of the meteorological satellite system operating in the fre:uency range $?!%*$

8/12/2019 ECCRep096

62/76

ECC REPORT 96Page ?2

Ta()* 41$@ M*-*oro)o:"a) .a-*))-* ;a-a ?.*; +or -#* .7?)a-o,

&.3.2 Interference analysis considerations

3:?r* 4@ I,-*r+*r*,"* ."*,aro (*-**, UMTS =GSM> UL a,; METSAT DL

The compatibility between meteorological satellite and M (Mobile atellite ystem) has been studied and described in7TU*3 3ecommendation A'$$8% H$"I' The compatibility between meteorological satellite Earth tations operating in thefre:uency range $

Lo*r +r*?*,"

=M5>

U*r +r*?*,"

=M5>

/@*$ %

8/12/2019 ECCRep096

63/76


M$%"" M ma+imum T+ power is of 6" d0m without uplin. power control the lea.age power of M$%"" M at its8 M,- ad&acent fre:uency range is 6" G 56'% Q *$6'% d0m'

UMT$%"" UE ma+imum T+ power is 2$ d0m without uplin. power control the lea.age power of UMT$%"" UE at its8 M,- ad&acent fre:uency range is 2$ G 66 Q *$2 d0m' 0ut in fact UMT uplin. power control is always actiated andthe simulated outdoor UMT UE T+ power distribution results were described in ECC 3eport %2' At the !"O percentilethe UMT UE T+ power is *22'5 d0m and with this more realistic UMT UE T+ power the UMT UE lea.age power atits 8 M,- ad&acent fre:uency range is *22'5 G 66 Q *88'5 d0m which is much lower than that of M$%"" M'

The potential interference from METAT >4 to UMT$%"" UE is not coered in this reportN this issue is left for futurefurther study if it appears necessary'

&.3.3 #onclusions

/rom the fre:uency arrangement between METAT and UMT$%"" the possible interference scenario is the interferencefrom UMT UE into METAT Earth tation' The METAT system has been in ad&acent operation with M$%"" formany years and as a matter of fact METAT Earth tations were not interfered with by M M transmissions' Acomparison of ad&acent lea.age power between M M and UMT UE indicates that the effectie UMT UE ad&acentchannel lea.age power is much lower than M ad&acent channel lea.age power so it is belieed that the interferencefrom UMT UE to METAT Earth tations operating in ad&acent fre:uency band is unli.ely to be a problem'

Co7a-()- "o,.;*ra-o, (*-**, UMTS1800 a,; Ra;o 7"ro#o,*.

&.&.1 Main characteristics of Radio Microphones

3adio microphone system characteristics are described in E3C 3eport ?6H$6I E3C#3EC igital1 6! d0(L;#m)

3eceier spectrum mas. hown in figure 5*8

perating modes indoor and outdoor

Channel selection no dynamic channel selection fre:uency tuningpossible throughout the fre:uency range'

Ta()* 41@ Ma, "#ara"-*r.-". o+ ra;o 7"ro#o,*

8/12/2019 ECCRep096

64/76


,

$c @ 0!5,$c - 0!5,

0d,

-0

-!0

-40

-50

-60

-70

-80

-90

-00

Un1duaed

carrier

re$erence

$c - MHz $c - , $c -,A

2

,A

2$c $c @ $c @ , $c @ MHz

$c + Tran:ier carrier $re>uencB

-20

3:?r* 4@ M"ro#o,* -ra,.7--*r .*"-r?7 7a.k =,or7a)*; -o "#a,,*) (a,;;-# B>

%""

8/12/2019 ECCRep096

65/76


&.&.2 Interference analysis

7nterference analysis between M$%"" and 3adio Microphones operating in ad&acent fre:uency bands was described inE3C 3eport ?6H$6I' The same interference analysis method can be used for the interference analysis between UMT$%""and 3adio Microphones operating in ad&acent bands' The conclusion of the interference analysis between M$%"" and

3adio Microphones was that a guard band of ECT METAT and 3adiomicrophones has been studied and described in this chapter' 0ased on the interference analysis the following conclusions

can be made1

70 785 805 880

UMT$%"" U4UMT$%"" >4

70 785 805 880

UMT$%"" U4UMT$%"" >4

70 785 805 880

UMT$%"" U4UMT$%"" >4

70 785 805 880805 880

UMT$%"" U4UMT$%"" >4

800

Micr1=1ne

70 785 805 880

UMT$%"" U4UMT$%"" >4

70 785 805 880

UMT$%"" U4UMT$%"" >4

70 785 805 880

UMT$%"" U4UMT$%"" >4

70 785 805 880805 880

UMT$%"" U4UMT$%"" >4

800

Micr1=1ne

8/12/2019 ECCRep096

66/76

ECC REPORT 96Page ??

$) 7nterference analysis shows that potential interference between UMT$%"" and >ECT does not appear to be aproblem e+cept for the case where an UMT$%"" pico 0 is installed in indoor enironment close to >ECT PPor 3/P' /or this deployment scenario an additional filter could be re:uired for preenting the potentialinterference from indoor pico*cellular UMT$%"" 0 to >ECT PP or 3/P when they are close to each other andoperating at the ad&acent fre:uencies of $%%" M,-' 7n practice >ECT system has a >CA (>ynamic ChannelAllocation) mechanism which allows it to aoid interference' M$%"" deployment has demonstrated that no

additional interference mitigation techni:ues are really needed in practice'2) The preliminary analysis indicates that the potential interference between UMT$%"" UE and METAT Earth

tations should not be a problem'

6) The preliminary interference analysis leads to the conclusion that with the e+isting guard band of E 3adio Access Betwor. 3adio Transmission and 3eception

HMA*PAM3 at !$8 M,- /eb' 2""5H%I ET7 EB 6"$ 55! ;$'$'$ (2""8) ,armoni-ed EB for C>MA spread spectrum base stations operating on the 58" M,-

cellular band (C>MA58") and 5$" 58 and %ME)une 2""?

H2$I E3C#3EC

8/12/2019 ECCRep096

67/76

ECC REPORT 96Page ?

eccrep096

Documents