ECCRep 096

ECC REPORT 96
COMPATIBILITY BETWEEN UMTS 900/1800 AND SYSTEMS

OPERATING IN ADJACENT BANDS
Krako! Mar"# $00%
Electronic Communications Committee (ECC)
within the European Conference of Postal and Telecommunications Administrations (CEPT)
ECC REPORT 96
Page 2
1 E&ECUTI'E SUMMARY
This report deals with the compatibility study between UMT!""#$%"" and systems operating in ad&acent bands'
This report gi(es the description of the compatibility study methodology) co*e+istence scenarios) simulation assumptions)
and 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 pro(ide assumptions and results to encompass the widest range of
possible situations) howe(er 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 ha(e 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 2M*3 as follows1
$) There is a priori no need of an additional guard band between UMT!"" and 2M*3) a carrier separation of 2'%
M,- or more between the UMT!"" carrier and the nearest 2M*3 carrier is sufficient without pre&udice to
pro(isions in point 2)' This conclusion is based on Monte Carlo simulations assumed suitable for typical case'
2) ,owe(er for some critical cases (e'g' with high located antenna) open and sparsely populated areas ser(ed by high
power UMT 0 close to the railway trac.s) bloc.ing etc) which would lead to assumption of possible direct line
of sight coupling) the MC4 calculations demonstrate that coordination is needed for a certain range of distances
(up to 5 .m or more from railway trac.)'
6) 7t is beneficial to acti(ate 2M*3 uplin. power control) especially for the train mounted M) otherwise the impact
on UMT U4 capacity could be important when the UMT networ. is using the 8 M,- channel ad&acent to the
2M*3 band' ,owe(er) it has to be recogni-ed that this is only applicable in low speed areas as elsewhere the use
of uplin. control in 2M*3 will cause significantly increased call drop out rates'
5) 7n order to protect 2M*3 operations) UMT operators should ta.e care when deploying UMT in the !"" M,-
band) where site engineering measures and#or better9 filtering capabilities (pro(iding additional coupling loss in
order to match the re:uirements defined for the critical#specific cases) may be needed in order to install UMT
sites close to the railway trac. when the UMT networ. is using the 8 M,- channel ad&acent to the 2M*3 band'
9 Currently) the out*of band interference le(el is gi(en by 62PP T 28'$"5 ;<'5'"
7t has to be noted that this study did not address tunnel co(erage' ite sharing) which is e+pected to
impro(e the coe+istence) has not been studied either'
=hen UMT!"" is deployed in the same geographical area in co*e+istence with PM3#PAM3 (C>MA PAM3)
TET3A) TAP) operating at fre:uencies abo(e !$8 M,-) some potential interference from PAM3#PAM3 0 to
UMT!"" 0 could be a problem' 7n order to protect UMT!"" 0) the utili-ation of interference mitigation
techni:ues is necessary1
i) 3educed PM3#PAM3 0 T+ power
ii) patial separation
iii) E+ternal filters
i() 2uard band
The potential interference from UMT!"" to aeronautical >ME operating at fre:uencies abo(e !<2 M,- does not
represent any difficulty' The fre:uency range between !?"*!<2 M,- is not currently used by aeronautical >ME but is
planned to be used in a near future' ome additional margins may be re:uired for the protection of aeronautical >ME
operating at fre:uencies between !?" and !<2 M,-) where the re:uired additional margins are dependent on >ME
carriers and aircraft positions' The studies ha(e shown that the only mitigation techni:ues) in order to ensure the
compatibility between the >ME system and UMT!"") that would bring sufficient isolation are1 additional filtering
and a larger guard band' ,owe(er these two mitigation techni:ues are not &udged applicable' 7t has to be noted that the
impact 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 be
e+amined' 7t is necessary that a common approach be used within Europe to ensure the compatibility'
ECC REPORT 96
Page 6
/urther compatibility study will be necessary if this fre:uency range is to be used by >ME systems or future
aeronautical systems addressed under =3C Agenda 7tem $'?'
The compatibility study between UMT!"" and M7> indicated that an additional margin of $< d0 of UMT!"" 0
spurious emissions o(er the fre:uency range between $""" M,- and $2"? M,- in reference to 62PP technical
specifications is re:uired for the protection of M7> terminal recei(er' 7f this additional margin is obtained by the
UMT 0 real performance being better than 62PP technical specifications) no other protection means such as
separation distance etc' are re:uired for the protection of M7>'
Potential interference between UMT$%"" and >ECT does not appear to be a problem) as the >ECT system has a
>CA (>ynamic Channel Allocation) mechanism which efficiently a(oids an interfered channel e+cept if both systems
are deployed indoor' 7ndeed) although >ECT uses >CA) interference analysis shows that in the case of UMT$%""
indoor pico cellular deployment using the fre:uency channel ad&acent to the >ECT fre:uency band) the use of some
interference mitigation techni:ue may be necessary to address potential interference to indoor >ECT 3/P or PP'
,owe(er) in practice) 2M$%"" 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$%"" and >ECT
systems'
The analysis indicates that the potential interference between UMT$%"" UE and METAT Earth tations should not
be a problem'
The preliminary interference analysis leads to the conclusion that) with a guard band of <"" .,-) the potential
interference from 3adio microphones to UMT$%"" 0 should not be a problem if the radio microphones ma+imum
transmit power is limited to $6 d0m (2" m=) for hand held microphones and $< d0m (8" m=) for body worn
microphones as recommended in E3C 3eport ?6 and E3C#3EC <"*"6E'
7t should be noted that the interference analysis between UMT$%"" UE and /i+ed er(ices was not considered in the
report'
7n some European countries) ci(il#military aeronautical radiona(igation system is using the fre:uency band ad&acent to
UMT!"") different to the fre:uency band of ci(il radiona(igation >ME) it is also used as safety*of*life application' The
fre:uency plan and the characteristics of the ci(il#military aeronautical radiona(igation system) as well as the interference
analysis between UMT!"" and the ci(il#military aeronautical radiona(igation system are not considered in this report'
ECC REPORT 96
Page 5
Ta()* o+ "o,-*,-.
1 E&ECUTI'E SUMMARY//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////$
$ INTRODUCTION////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////%
0 COMPATIBILITY STUDY BETWEEN UMTS900 AND SYSTEMS OPERATING IN ADJACENT BANDS///////%
6'$ @TEM APE3AT7B2 7B A>CACEBT 0AB> ''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''<
6'2 CAMPAT70747T@ TU>@ 0ET=EEB UMT!"" AB> 2M*3''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''%
3.2.1 GSM-R system characteristics................................................................................................................................8
3.2.2 Interference analysis based on the comparison of out-of-band emissions between M!S and GSM.................1"
6'2'2'$ 7ntroduction'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' $"
6'2'2'2 Comparison of UMT!"" and 2M!"" out*of*band emissions''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''$"
6'2'2'6 Analysis summary'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' $6
3.2.3 Interference analysis with M#$ approach...........................................................................................................13
6'2'6'$ 7ntroduction ''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' $6
6'2'6'2 7nterference analysis results''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' $6
3.2.% Interference analysis with Monte-#arlo simulations..........................................................................................1&
6'2'5'$ UMT!"" and 2M*3 deployment and co*e+istence scenarios''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''$8
6'2'5'2 imulation assumptions''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' $<
6'2'5'6 7nterference analysis method'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' 2"
6'2'5'5 imulation results''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' 2$
6'2'5'8 Analysis summary'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' 25
3.2.& #onclusions..........................................................................................................................................................2%
6'6 CAMPAT70747T@ CAB7>E3AT7AB 0ET=EEB UMT!"" AB> PM3#PAM3'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''28
3.3.1 #haracteristics of 'MR(')MR systems ..............................................................................................................2&
6'6'$'$ C>MA PAM3 system characteristics ''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' 28
6'6'$'2 TET3A system characteristics''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' 2<
3.3.2 Interference analysis considerations....................................................................................................................28
6'6'2'$ Potential interference between UMT!"" and C>MA PAM3 at !$8 M,-'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''2%
6'6'2'2 Potential interference between UMT!"" and TET3A at !$8 M,-''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''2!
3.3.3 #onclusions..........................................................................................................................................................2*
6'5 CAMPAT70747T@ TU>@ 0ET=EEB UMT!"" AB> >ME''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''6"
3.%.1 +M, and M!S system characteristics..............................................................................................................3"
3.%.2 #ase Study............................................................................................................................................................3%
3.%.3 Interference analysis results.................................................................................................................................3&
3.%.% )nalysis of the results...........................................................................................................................................3*
3.%.& Miti-ation techni.ues and miti-ation effects.......................................................................................................%1
3.%./ #onclusions..........................................................................................................................................................%2
6'8 CAMPAT70747T@ TU>@ 0ET=EEB UMT!"" AB> M7>'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''56
3.&.1 System parameters and co-e0istence scenario.....................................................................................................%3
6'8'$'$ /re:uency band plan'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' 56
6'8'$'2 ystem parameters''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' 56
6'8'$'6 Propagation model''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' 5<
6'8'$'5 imulation configuration'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' 5<
'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''5<
3.&.2 Interference analysis and simulation results........................................................................................................%1
6'8'2'$ 4e(el of the UMT!"" signal recei(ed by the M7> terminal (out of the M7> recei(ing band)'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''5<
6'8'2'2 4e(el of the UMT!"" signal recei(ed by the M7> terminal (in the M7> recei(ing band)'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''5!
D2"" M''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''82
D*2$ >0M''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''82
D*%< >0M''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''82
E$< >0''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''82
2"" M''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''82
*2$ >0M''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''82
*%< >0M''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''82
$< >0''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''82
6"" M''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''82
*22 >0M''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''82
*%% >0M''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''82
$? >0''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''82
5"" M''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''82
*26 >0M''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''82
ECC REPORT 96
Page 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
<"" M''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''82
*2% >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..........................................................................................................................................................&3
6'? CABC4U7AB''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''86
1 COMPATIBILITY STUDY BETWEEN UMTS1800 AND SYSTEMS OPERATING IN ADJACENT BANDS///22
5'$ @TEM APE3AT7B2 7B A>CACEBT 0AB>'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''88
5'2 CAMPAT70747T@ TU>@ 0ET=EEB UMT$%"" AB> >ECT''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''8?
%.2.1 +,#! system characteristics...............................................................................................................................&/
%.2.2 M!S18"" system characteristics.......................................................................................................................&1
%.2.3 Interference analysis between M!S18"" and +,#!.........................................................................................&8
%.2.% Interference analysis and simulation results........................................................................................................&*
%.2.& #onclusions........................................................................................................................................................../1
5'6 CAMPAT70747T@ CAB7>E3AT7AB 0ET=EEB UMT$%"" AB> METAT ''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''?$
%.3.1 Main characteristics of M,!S)!........................................................................................................................./1
%.3.2 Interference analysis considerations..................................................................................................................../2
%.3.3 #onclusions........................................................................................................................................................../3
5'5 CAMPAT70747T@ CAB7>E3AT7AB 0ET=EEB UMT$%"" AB> 3A>7A M7C3AP,ABE'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''?6
%.%.1 Main characteristics of Radio Microphones......................................................................................................../3
%.%.2 Interference analysis............................................................................................................................................/&
%.%.3 #onclusions........................................................................................................................................................../&
5'8 CAMPAT70747T@ TU>@ 0ET=EEB UMT$%"" AB> /7FE> E3;7CE''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''?8
5'? CABC4U7AB '''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''?8
2 RE3ERENCES //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////66
ANNE& 1 4 GSM900 AND UMTS900 ACLR PRO3ILES///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////6%
ANNE& $ 4 INTER3ERENCE ANALYSIS CALCULATION WIT5 MCL APPROAC5 3OR T5E CO4
E&ISTENCE BETWEEN UMTS900 AND GSM4R///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////69
ANNE& 0 4 ABBRE'IATIONS//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////%6
ECC REPORT 96
Page ?
ECC REPORT 96
Page <
$ INTRODUCTION
UMT networ.s ha(e been widely deployed in the fre:uency band $!2"*$!%" M,-#2$$"*2$<" M,-)) howe(er) there are
still sparsely populated and remote areas where there are difficulties to pro(ide 7MT*2"""#UMT ser(ices in a cost*
efficient way' UMT deployment in the !"" M,- band can facilitate the pro(ision of the e+pected 7MT*2"""#UMT
ser(ices to users in those areas' The main interest for European mobile operators to deploy UMT in the !"" M,- band is
the larger co(erage compared to UMT in the 2""" M,- band' UMT!"" offers a considerably more cost effecti(e
solution for pro(iding UMT ser(ices in rural area with low population density'
The total bandwidth of the $%"" M,- fre:uency band is 2+ <8 M,-' 7n some countries) the $%"" M,- band is not totally
used by 2M systems) especially in low population density rural areas' Part of the $%"" M,- band may become a
complementary band for deploying UMT) where the interest for mobile operators to deploy UMT comes also from the
fact that it is easy to share the same 2M$%"" radio sites by UMT systems operating in $%"" M,- band'
The !"" M,- band and $%"" M,- band ha(e been allocated to 2M systems in Europe and they are widely used' As
deployment of UMT (UT3A*/>>) systems in the !"" M,- band and $%"" M,- band does not mean the replacement of
2M systems by UMT) good compatibility between UMT and 2M in the !"" M,- and $%"" M,- bands is important
and necessary' ECC 3eport %2 deals with the compatibility study for UMT deployed in the 2M!"" and 2M$%""
fre:uency bands' The deployment scenarios of UMT!""#$%"" and potential interference between UMT and 2M
operating in ad&acent channels ha(e been described in ECC 3eport %2'
European fre:uency allocation tables indicate that se(eral systems are using fre:uency bands ad&acent to UMT!""#$%""
(2M!""#$%"") systems) and se(eral E3C and ECC 3eports ha(e been de(eloped on the compatibility between
2M!""#$%"" and systems operating in ad&acent bands' The intention of this report is to deal with the compatibility study
between UMT!""#$%"" and systems operating in ad&acent bands'
This report gi(es the rele(ant parameters of systems operating in ad&acent bands of UMT!""#$%"") which are needed in
interference studies' The interference problems are in(estigated by both deterministic and statistical approaches' ome
scenarios are studied with detailed simulations and analysis) for e+ample the interference scenarios between UMT!"" and
2M*3 and the interference scenarios between UMT$%"" and >ECT) whereas the potential interference analysis for
se(eral other cases are considered and deri(ed from the e+isting E3C and ECC 3eports for 2M!""#$%""'
7n this report) chapter 6 is dedicated to the compatibility study between UMT!"" and systems operating in its ad&acent
bands' The compatibility study between UMT$%"" and the ad&acent band systems is described in chapter 5'
0 COMPATIBILITY STUDY BETWEEN UMTS900 AND SYSTEMS OPERATING IN ADJACENT BANDS
0/1 S6.-*7. o8*ra-9,: 9, a;<a"*,- (a,;.
All systems operating in bands ad&acent to UMT!"" and addressed in this report are summari-ed in table 6*$ below'
/re:uency (M,-) ystem Bote
%<?*%%" 2M*3 (U4)
8804912 GSM900 =UL>
UMTS900 =UL>
I,")?;9,: E4GSM a,; P4GSM
!$8*!2$ PM3#PAM3 (>4)
!2$*!28 2M*3 (>4)
9$24960 GSM900 =DL>
UMTS900 =DL>
I,")?;9,: E4GSM a,; P4GSM
!?"*$$?5 Aeronautical
3adiona(igation
Communication systems
>ME#TACAB
M7> (Military # BATA)
Ta()* 041@ S6.-*7. o8*ra-9,: 9, a;<a"*,- (a,;. o+ UMTS900
ECC REPORT 96
Page %
The sharing studies between UMT!"" and the following systems operating in ad&acent bands were considered1
$) 2M*3
2) PM3#PAM3 (e'g' TET3A) TAP) C>MA)
6) >ME
5) M7>
The interference analysis between UMT!"" and 2M*3 is described in section 6'2' ection 6'6 gi(es a brief description
of the interference analysis between UMT!"" and PM3#PAM3' The co*e+istence scenario and the interference analysis
between UMT!"" and aeronautical system >ME (>istance Measuring E:uipment) is described in section 6'5' The
interference analysis between UMT!"" and M7> is described in section 6'8' The conclusion is gi(en in section 6'?'
At the same time aeronautical radiona(igation systems are operating in the fre:uency band %?2*!?" M,- in some countries
(see 8'626 3adio 3egulations)' Compatibility studies with these systems were not considered in this 3eport'
0/$ Co78a-9(9)9-6 .-?;6 (*-**, UMTS900 a,; GSM4R
The UMT!"" fre:uency band is arranged as1
G Uplin. (UE transmit) 0 recei(e)1 %%" G !$8 M,-
G >ownlin. (0 transmit) UE recei(e)1 !28 G !?" M,-
G Carrier separation1 8 M,-
The 2M*3 fre:uency band is arranged as1
G Uplin. (M transmit) 0 recei(e)1 %<? G %%" M,-
G >ownlin. (0 transmit) M recei(e)1 !2$ G !28 M,-
G Carrier separation1 2"" .,-
The fre:uency band plans for 2M*3 and UMT are shown in figure 6*$'
39:?r* 041@ 3r*A?*,"6 (a,; 8)a, +or GSM4R a,; UMTS 9, 900 M5B (a,;
3.2.1 GSM-R system characteristics
>etails of the 2M*3 3/ performance and system parameters can be found in 62PP technical specification T58'""8 H?I'
ee also H22I' The main 2M*3 system characteristics are summari-ed in tables 6*2) 6*6) 6*5) and 6*8'
UL
UMTS-UL
%%" M,-
!$8 M,-
!28 M,- !?" M,-
%<? M,-
RGSM-UL
UMTS-DL
!2$ M,-
RGSM-DL UL
UMTS-UL
%%" M,-
!$8 M,-
!28 M,- !?" M,-
%<? M,-
RGSM-UL
UMTS-DL
!2$ M,-
RGSM-DL
ECC REPORT 96
Page !
GSM4R
/re:uency band (U4) (M,-) %<?*%%"
/re:uency band (>4) (M,-) !2$*!28
Carrier separation (.,-) 2""
Modulation 2MJ
0*M MC4 (d0) ?" (urban area)
<" (rural area)
Typical cell range (.m) %
BS 5a,; 8or-a()*
MS
Tra9, Mo?,-*;
MS
Ma+imum T+ power (=) 6" 2 %
Thermal noise (d0m) *$2$ *$2$ *$2$
Boise figure (d0) 8 ! <
Boise floor (d0m) *$$? *$$2 *$$5
3ecei(er sensiti(ity (d0m) *$$" *$"2 *$"5
3ecei(er protection ratio (d0) ! ! !
Antenna height (m) 2" (Urban)
58 (3ural)
$'8 5'8
Antenna gain (d0i) $% " 2
/eeder loss (d0) 6 " "
pectrum mas. and spurious
emissions
62PP T58'""8 62PP T58'""8
Ta()* 04$@ Ma9, GSM4R .6.-*7 8ara7*-*r.
0 T+
power
(d0m)
$""
(.,-)
2""
(.,-)
28"
(.,-)
5""
(.,-)
?"" $ 2"" $ %"" ? """
D $ 2""
(.,-)
D $ %""
(.,-)
D ? """
(.,-) (.,-)
10 C0!2 400 400 460D 4%0 4%0 4%2 480
5$ K")8 *6" *66 *?"9 *?% *<$ *<6 *%"
6! K")8 *6" *66 *?"9 *?? *?! *<$ *%"
6< K")8 *6" *66 *?"9 *?5 *?< *?! *%"
68 K")8 *6" *66 *?"9 *?2 *?8 *?< *%"
66 K")8 *6" *66 *?"9 *?" *?6 *?8 *%"
BATE1 9 /or e:uipment supporting %*PJ) the re:uirement for %*PJ modulation is
*8? d0'
Ta()* 040@ S8*"-r?7 7a.k o+ GSM4R BTS9
9Bote1 The (alues gi(en in this table are the ma+imum allowed le(el (d0) relati(e to a measurement in 6" .,- on the
carrier as defined in 62PP T58'""8 H?I'
ECC REPORT 96
Page $"
0 M
2eneral re:uirement *6? d0m9 *6? d0m9
Co*siting with 2M!"" *%! d0m#$"" .,-
Ta()* 041@ S8?r9o?. *79..9o, o+ GSM4R MS
9 measurement band depends on the carrier separation) which is defined in T58'""8 H?I'
/re:uency 2M*3
band other M small M 0T
d0L; d0m d0L; d0m d0L; d0m
(emf) (emf) (emf)
7n*band
?"" .,- Mf*f
o
MD %"" .,- <8 *6% <" *56 %< *2?
%"" .,- Mf*f
o
MD $)? M,- %" *66 <" *56 !< *$?
$)? M,- Mf*f
o
M D 6 M,- !" *26 %" *66 !< *$?
6 M,- Mf*f
o
M !" *26 !" *26 $"" *$6
out*of*band
(a) $$6 " $$6 " $2$ %
(b) * * * * * *
(c) * * * * * *
(d) $$6 " $$6 " $2$ %
Ta()* 042@ B)o"k9,: "#ara"-*r9.-9". o+ GSM4R
The cases (a)) (b)) (c)) (d) are defined in 62PP T58'""8 H?I'
3.2.2 Interference analysis based on the comparison of out-of-band emissions between UMS and GSM
3.2.2.1 Introduction
2M has been deployed o(er many years and 2M*3 has been deployed in some European countries) and no problem of
interference from 2M emissions into 2M*3 has been raised so far' This section deals with the comparison of out*of*
band emissions between 2M and UMT' The comparison of emission mas.s is (ery helpful in e(aluating the potential
interference from UMT!"" to 2M*3'
3.2.2.2 #omparison of M!S*"" and GSM*"" out-of-band emissions
!efinition of out-of-band emissions
Aut*of*band emissions are defined in the 2M!"" and UMT!"" technical specifications' The AC43 (Ad&acent Channel
power 4ea.age 3atio) can be obtained by the integration of the spectrum mas. o(er 2"" .,-) the AC43 profiles of
2M!"" and UMT!"" are gi(en in Anne+ $'
"ssumptions
7n practical 2M deployment) a sector of a 2M site has se(eral emitters (T3F) and thus) is using se(eral 2"" .,- 2M
carriers o(er a band of 8 M,-) in order to meet the capacity re:uirement' 7t is therefore intended to deri(e the 2M!""
out*of*band emissions with se(eral 2M channels being aggregated'
Current 2M networ.s use a $+6 re*use scheme for TC, channelsN in other words) each T3F is using one carrier
randomly chosen among a list of three carriers' /or instance) a tri*sector 2M!"" base*station using 6 T3F is using 6
2M fre:uency carriers' As a conse:uence) it can be assumed that a 2M sector is using three carriers o(er 8 M,-' The
ECC REPORT 96
Page $$
case of three 2M carriers will be ta.en into account in the comparison of out*of*band emissions between 2M and
UMT'
/igure 6*2 below shows the spectral occupancy for the case where the 2M deployment is using a $+6 fre:uency re*use
scheme and three T3F are implemented in a sector with three 2"" .,- carriers' 7t is assumed that the 2M carriers are
e:ually distributed' A worst case scenario would be where all the 2M carriers are located close to the 2M*3 allocation)
whereas the best scenario in terms of interference would be to ha(e the three carriers as far as possible from the 2M*3
allocation'
GSM-R carrier GSM900 carrier
200 kHz
guard band
5 MHz
GSM Allocation GSM-R Allocation
GSM900 carrier GSM900 carrier GSM-R carrier GSM900 carrier
200 kHz
guard band
5 MHz
GSM Allocation GSM-R Allocation
GSM900 carrier GSM900 carrier
39:?r* 04$@ S8*"-ra) o""?8a,"6 o+ a, E4GSM .*"-or oE*r 2 M5B
#omparison of $S out-of-band emissions
2)? 6)" 2)% 6)5 6)2 6)? 6)% 5)" 5)2 5)5 5)?
2M*3#UMT carrier separation
5)%
2M*3#2M carrier separation
39:?r* 040@ Co78ar9.o, o+ -#* BS o?-4o+4(a,; *79..9o,.
ECC REPORT 96
Page $2
/igure 6*6 gi(es the out*of*band emissions when three 2M channels are deployed as shown in figure 6*2' The 2M out*
of*band profile is compared with the UMT spectrum mas.' The transmitting power of both 2M and UMT 0s are
fi+ed as 56 d0m'
/igure 6*6 shows the out*of*band emissions when the UMT sector is transmitting at Pmin) Pma+ and also when the cell
load is at 8" O) where Pmin is the transmitting power of common channels) and the transmitter power at cell load of 8"O is
calculated by the addition of common channel powers and the transmitting power for traffic channels at 8"O cell load' 7t
should be noted that in the 2M mas.) after 2 M,- carrier separation) it enters the spurious emission domain'
2M 0 0CC, channelPs ma+imum transmitting power does not depend on the traffic load in the cell and is fi+ed at its
ma+imum power' An other traffic channels there may be a reduction in mean transmitted power when power control is
used) which can be further reduced by the use of >TF' UMT 0 transmitting power is dependent on the traffic load)
where usually $"O of the 0 power is allocated to the common channel (Pilot) ynch) etc) and the rest of the 0 T+ power
is allocated to the traffic) depending on the cell load'
=hen the traffic load is -ero) then the Pmin Q $"O of the 0 transmitting power) when traffic load is 8"O) the 0 T+
Power Q ($"O K8"O+!"O) + Ma+imum TF 0 PowerN thus T+Power Q 88O + Ma+imum TF 0 Power or T+Power Q 56
d0m G 2'? d0 Q 5"'5 d0m'
7t should be noted that 8"O of cell load is the reference cell load in UMT networ. design) whereas in rural areas the
reference cell load could be lower than 6"O in a co(erage dri(en design' =hen the cell load is $""O) then the UMT 0
will transmit at its ma+imum power Pma+'
7t should be noted that 62PP technical specification T28'$"5 and ET7 specification T$28$"5 defined only the UMT
0 spectrum mas. and out*of*band emission limits at the ma+imum transmitting power' The out*of*band emissions at
reduced transmitting power Pmin and P(8"O) are calculated under the assumption that the UMT 0 spectrum mas.
(AC43) is the same as that at Pma+ as defined in E3C 3eport ?%'
7t can be seen from the cur(es in figure 6*6 that at 2'% M,- carrier separation the out*of*band emission of UMT is lower
than that of 2M!"" at 5"" .,- carrier separation) and at 6 M,- carrier separation it is abo(e the 2M!"" 0 out*of*
band emission at ?"" .,-'
#omparison of erminal out-of-band emissions
/igure 6*5 below gi(es the comparison of out*of*band emissions between UMT UE and 2M M) where the cumulati(e
effect of three 2M channels as shown in /igure 6*6 was ta.en into account in the calculation of 2M M out*of*band
emissions' 7t should be noted that the (ariation in locations of the 2M M relati(e to the UMT UE are ignored as this
will a(erage out' The 2M!"" terminal power is fi+ed at 66 d0m and the UMT!"" terminal power at 2$ d0m'
2)? 6)" 2)% 6)5 6)2 6)? 6)% 5)" 5)2 5)5 5)?
2M*3#UMT carrier separation
2M*3#2M carrier separation
39:?r* 041@ Co78ar9.o, o+ -#* T*r79,a) o?-4o+4(a,; *79..9o,. =P7aF>
ECC REPORT 96
Page $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 le(el as 2M!"" M) at 6'" M,- carrier separation it is higher) but still below the out*of*
band emission of 2M!"" M at 5"" .,- carrier separation'
7mplementing power control in 2M!"" and UMT!"" terminals helps to reduce emission le(els drastically' ECC 3eport
%2 (Compatibility tudy /or UMT Aperating within the 2M !"" and 2M $%"" /re:uency 0ands) pro(ides the C>/
(Cumulati(e >istribution /unction) of UMT!"" UE transmit power' /or outdoor UE) it should be noted that !"O of
terminals transmit at a power le(el lower than *26 d0m and 8" O at a power le(el lower than *62 d0m' 7t should also be
noted that 2M M power control is much less fast and less efficient compared to UMT UE power control'
3.2.2.3 )nalysis summary
The comparison of out*of*band emissions between 2M!"" and UMT!"" shows that the UMT!"" and 2M!"" out*of*
band emissions do not present significant difference) which means that UMT!"" should not a priori cause more
interference than 2M!""'
2M*3 has been deployed in many European countries) although e+perience with uncoordinated use ad&acent to the lowest
E*2M fre:uencies is limited'
0ased on the comparison of out*of*band emissions between 2M!"" and UMT!"") a 2'% M,- carrier separation
between UMT carrier and the nearest 2M*3 carrier is a priori sufficient to ensure the protection of 2M*3 based on the
abo(e approach'
3.2.3 Interference analysis with M#% approach
3.2.3.1 Introduction
This section deals with the interference analysis between UMT!"" and 2M*3 using an MC4 (Minimum Coupling 4oss)
approach' The interference analysis described in this section co(ers both in*band bloc.ing and out*of*band bloc.ing'
3.2.3.2 Interference analysis results
6'2'6'2'$ 2ut-of-band emissions
Using the out*of*band emission figures (UMT 0 Pma+ out*of*band emission cur(e) described in ection 6'2'2 the
e+clusion distances ha(e been calculated with an MC4 approach for the protection of 2M*3'
6'2'6'2'2 Interference analysis results
UMTS BS -o GSM4R MS
The calculations are pro(ided in Anne+ 2) Part A' Case $ (based on the ,ata*A.umura model) shows that the interference
distances for a 2M*3 M operating at minimum 2M*3 networ. design signal le(el are 6'? .m for speech and 5'5 .m
for data in the highest 2M*3 channelN and $'% .m for speech and 2'2 .m for data in the fourth channel'
E(en mo(ing to beyond the fourth channel will gi(e interference distances of $'8 .m and $'! .m for speech and data
respecti(ely'
This problem can be reduced by the addition of filters in the UMT 0) howe(er this is unli.ely to sol(e the problem for
the highest 2M*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 alternati(e calculations are gi(en as additional e+amples in Anne+ 2' An Case $bis the assumptions for the calculation
are considered as more conser(ati(e in order to address critical situations (including contribution of direct line of sight)'
Ane other e+ample of calculations is pro(ided Part 0 of Anne+ 2 for the cases where the 2M*3 networ. is noise*limited
and interference*limited'
The bloc.ing performance of 2M*3 mobiles is defined in EB6""!$"' /or the 2M*3 M it is defined as *6% d0m for
?""*%"" .,- carrier separation and this figure has been used below' ,owe(er) it should be noted that when the difference
between the centre of the 2M*3 and UMT channel is set at 2'% M,- (band edge separation of 2"" .,-) then the
interference 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 fading
margin is ignored) the bloc.ing distance rises to %6" m'
ECC REPORT 96
Page $5
UMTS BS -o GSM4R BTS
Anne+ 2 * Part A) Case 6 co(ers the bloc.ing of the 2M*3 0T by the high power UMT!"" 0T' This demonstrates
that 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 e(en a low power medium range UMT 0 in a micro*cellular deployment will cause
bloc.ing at distances of $<8 m) increasing to 62"m if the fading margin is ignored'
0loc.ing of the 2M*3 0T could be reduced by applying filters at the 2M*3 0T'
The definition of recei(er bloc.ing is the effect of a strong out*of*band signal) present at the input of the recei(er) on the
recei(erPs ability to detect an in*band wanted signal' Thus) the bloc.ing signal reduces the specified recei(er sensiti(ity by
a certain number of d0s'
7n the case of 2M*3 0 recei(e#UMT*0 transmitting) the bloc.ing effects from a UMT 0 ha(e to be compared with
what would occur from a 2M 0T'
Boting that the height of the antennas) tilt) gain) and sector aperture will be the same for 2M and UMT 0) two elements
need to be considered1
* The ma+ E73P from the interferer and the resultant interfering le(el at the (ictim 0) including selecti(ity
properties of the recei(erN
* The occurrence probability of bloc.ing issues with regard to 22#62 air interface refarming'
As gains are the same for both UMT and 2M 0) we will &ust compare transmitting power of each technology' =hen
UMT ma+imum transmit power is 56 d0m#6'%5 M,-) 2M 0 transmit power is 56 d0m#2"" .,- with a number of
simultaneous channels transmitting) dependent on the si-e of band allocated to one operator and the fre:uency reuse factor'
7t has to be noted that UMT downlin. is power controlled in order to reduce the transmitting power to between 66 and 56
d0m#6'%5 M,-' 2M 0 transmits at radio fre:uency channels without power control such as 0CC, (0roadcast Common
Channel) channels using the full power of 56 d0m#2"" .,-' Thus from a transmitting power point of (iew) 2M 0 could
cause more se(ere bloc.ing to 2M*3 than UMT 0'
Concerning occurrence probability) using the same cell sites) a 2M networ. with 5+$2 fre:uency reuse factor for radio
fre:uency channels without power control and fre:uency hopping) 5+$2 or $+6 for TC, with or without fre:uency hopping
and power control) the probability to ha(e a 2M 0T transmitting in close geographical (icinity of a 2M*3 base
recei(er will be the same as for a UMT networ. with fre:uency re*use $ scheme'
6'2'6'2'6 )nalysis summary
2enerally it is considered that the MC4 method for interference analysis is the worst case where no system outage is
accepted) and conse:uently the results are usually pessimistic' 7n the interference analysis with MC4 approach presented
abo(e) the minimum allowed signal le(el used was the networ. design ob&ecti(e le(el of *!% d0m) and not the 2M*3 M
recei(er sensiti(ity le(el) which allows for a small probability of outage at the limits of co(erage'
/rom the interference analysis results shown abo(e with MC4 approach) it is apparent that considerable interference at
distances of greater than 2 .m will be caused to 2M*3 systems if the lower UMT channels are used' This result will also
be applicable to lower power UMT 0) although the interference distance is reduced to $<" m'
A reduction in the effects of out*of*band emissions can be achie(ed by applying filtering to the UMT 0) but it is
considered that this will still re:uire a suitable guard band'
The effect of bloc.ing is more significant and re:uires that no high power UMT!"" 0 is placed closer than ??" m to the
railway without coordination' E(en low power micro*cells will need to be placed at a distance of at least $<" m) which will
rule out their deployment inside railway station areas'
ECC REPORT 96
Page $8
3.2.& Interference analysis with Monte-#arlo simulations
3.2.%.1 M!S*"" and GSM-R deployment and co-e0istence scenarios
6'2'5'$'$ GSM-R deployment scenario
2M*3 networ.s offer a linear co(erage of railway lines with bi*sector radio sites installed along the railway) as shown in
figure 6*8' The main system characteristics and networ. parameters are summari-ed in table 6*2'
39:?r* 042@ GSM4R ;*8)o67*,- ."*,ar9o
Two ma&or characteristics of 2M*3 co(erage are1 $) 4inear co(erageN 2) ,igh :uality co(erage (!8O space and time
a(ailability)' 7n Europe) most 2M*3 networ.s are designed with a 0 antenna height of about 6" m) and cell range is
around 8*? .m' The assumption of 0 antenna height at 58 m and cell range at % .m represents the worst case scenario for
the sharing study'
There are two types of 2M*3 M as described in table 6*21 2= handset M and %= train mounted M' As shown in
figure 6*? below) the 2M*3 %= train mounted M is the M that is located inside the train) connected to the e+ternal M
antenna mounted on the roof top of the train'

39:?r* 046@ Co,,*"-9o, (*-**, -ra9, 7o?,-*; a,-*,,a a,; MS .9-?a-*; 9,.9;* o+ -#* -ra9,
BTS BTS BTS
ECC REPORT 96
Page $?
6'2'5'$'2 M!S*"" deployment scenario
The main ob&ecti(e of UMT deployment in the !"" M,- band is for co(erage e+tension) but in urban areas the
deployment of UMT in the !"" M,- band can also impro(e tremendously the indoor co(erage :uality' 7n rural areas the
deployment of UMT in the !"" M,- band allows mobile networ. operators to offer 62 ser(ices at lower cost'
39:?r* 04%@ UMTS ,*-ork )a6o?-
The typical UMT!"" deployment scenario considered in the sharing study with 2M*3 is the rural area deployment with
cell range 293Q8""" m) where the networ. layout is shown in figure 6*<'
6'2'5'$'6 #o-e0istence between M!S*"" and GSM-R
0ased on the 2M*3 and UMT deployment scenarios described abo(e) simulations were performed based on the co*
e+istence scenario shown in figure 6*%'
As shown in figure 6*8) 2M*3 0 sites are placed along the railway) where the a(erage distance between 2M*3 0
radio site and the railway is 2" m' The separation distance between the railway line and UMT sites is represented by d"'
Table 6*? below gi(es three typical distance shift rQd"#566" m and the separation distances between railway line and the
nearest UMT sites) where the distance 566" m is obtained from 2939cos(6"R)Q8"""9cos(6"R)Q566" m) as shown in
figure 6*%'
>istance shift r
(rQd"#566")
eparation distance
d" (m)
" "
"'8 2$?8
$ 566"
Ta()* 046@ D9.-a,"* (*-**, ra9)a6 )9,* a,; UMTS .9-*.
The simulation was done with a :uasi*static Monte*Carlo simulator' UMT UEs are randomly distributed within the
UMT!"" co(erage area) the reference UMT networ. uplin. and downlin. capacities are simulated without the presence
of 2M*3 networ.' The UMT uplin. capacity is obtained with the threshold of ? d0 noise rise) corresponding to <8O
cell load' >ownlin. capacity is simulated with the threshold of 8O outage'
C*)) ra;9?. R
I,-*r4.9-*
;9.-a,"* 0DR
C*)) ra,:* $DR
UMTS
C*)) ra;9?. R
I,-*r4.9-*
;9.-a,"* 0DR
C*)) ra,:* $DR
UMTS
C*)) ra;9?. R
I,-*r4.9-*
;9.-a,"* 0DR
C*)) ra,:* $DR
UMTS
C*)) ra;9?. R
I,-*r4.9-*
;9.-a,"* 0DR
C*)) ra,:* $DR
UMTS
C*)) ra;9?. R
I,-*r4.9-*
;9.-a,"* 0DR
C*)) ra,:* $DR
UMTS
C*)) ra,:* $DR
UMTS
C*)) ra;9?. R
I,-*r4.9-*
;9.-a,"* 0DR
C*)) ra,:* $DR
UMTS
C*)) ra;9?. R
I,-*r4.9-*
;9.-a,"* 0DR
C*)) ra,:* $DR
UMTS
C*)) ra;9?. R
I,-*r4.9-*
;9.-a,"* 0DR
C*)) ra,:* $DR
UMTS
C*)) ra;9?. R
I,-*r4.9-*
;9.-a,"* 0DR
C*)) ra,:* $DR
UMTS
C*)) ra;9?. R
I,-*r4.9-*
;9.-a,"* 0DR
C*)) ra;9?. R
I,-*r4.9-*
;9.-a,"* 0DR
C*)) ra,:* $DR
UMTS
C*)) ra,:* $DR
UMTS
C*)) ra;9?. R
I,-*r4.9-*
;9.-a,"* 0DR
C*)) ra;9?. R
I,-*r4.9-*
;9.-a,"* 0DR
C*)) ra,:* $DR
UMTS
C*)) ra,:* $DR
UMTS
C*)) ra;9?. R
I,-*r4.9-*
;9.-a,"* 0DR
C*)) ra;9?. R
I,-*r4.9-*
;9.-a,"* 0DR
C*)) ra,:* $DR
UMTS
C*)) ra,:* $DR
UMTS
C*)) ra,:* $DR
UMTS
C*)) ra,:* $DR
UMTS
ECC REPORT 96
Page $<
39:?r* 048/ UMTS900 a,; GSM4R Co4*F9.-*,"* ."*,ar9o
2M*3 M are uniformly distributed on the railway line) 2M*3 downlin. channel is considered as radio fre:uency
channels without power control) but power control on uplin. is acti(ated in the simulations' The reference 2M*3
performance is the uplin. and downlin. outages without interference from UMT' 7t should be noted that this co*e+istence
scenario is (alid for rural en(ironment'
7t is important to note that these simulations didnPt consider dynamic beha(ior of 2M*3 (e'g' for the case of deployment
of high speed trains) and UMT!"" systems' Additional studies for those cases may be needed on a national basis) based
on practical e+perience'
3.2.%.2 Simulation assumptions
imulation assumptions are summari-ed in table 6*<' These assumptions are similar to those used in the sharing study
between UMT!"" and 2M!"" described in ECC 3eport %2H$I'
S"*,ar9o UMTS=7a"ro> 4 GSM4R=7a"ro> 9, r?ra) ar*a 9, ?,"oor;9,a-*; o8*ra-9o,
imulation cases
Two simulation cases 1 UMT uplin. as (ictim and 2M*3 >4 as (ictim
13 GSM-R +ownlin4
-GSM-R 5radio fre.uency carrier without power control3 as 6ictim for train mounted
GSM-R MS
23 M!S plin4
- 7#+M) $ as 6ictim 5Simulate GSM system8 then add M!S users until the total
noise rise hits / d93
- GSM-R uplin4 power control is acti6ated
-:o fre.uency hoppin- for GSM-R
*3un simulations with (arious AC73s between UMT carrier and the nearest 2M*3
carrier for (arious space separations between UMT radio site and railway (d")'
46
47 48
49
50 5
52
5! 54
55
56 57
d0
-2 -"5 - -0"5 0 0"5 "5 2
# 0
4
-2
-"5
-
-0"5
0
0"5
"5
2
# 0
4
2 !
4
5 6
7
8 9
0
2
!
4 5
6
7 8
9
20 2
22
2! 24
25
26 27
28
29 !0
!
!2 !!
!4
!5 !6
!7
!8 !9
40
4 42
4!
44 45
46
47 48
49
50 5
52
5! 54
55
56 57
d0
46
47 48
49
50 5
52
5! 54
55
56 57
d0
-2 -"5 - -0"5 0 0"5 "5 2
# 0
4
-2
-"5
-
-0"5
0
0"5
"5
2
# 0
4
2 !
4
5 6
7
8 9
0
2
!
4 5
6
7 8
9
20 2
22
2! 24
25
26 27
28
29 !0
!
!2 !!
!4
!5 !6
!7
46
47 48
49
50 5
52
5! 54
55
56 57
d0
-2 -"5 - -0"5 0 0"5 "5 2
# 0
4
-2
-"5
-
-0"5
0
0"5
"5
2
# 0
4
2 !
4
5 6
7
8 9
0
2
!
4 5
6
7 8
9
20 2
22
2! 24
25
26 27
28
29 !0
!
!2 !!
!4
!5 !6
!7
!8 !9
40
4 42
4!
44 45
46
47 48
49
50 5
52
5! 54
55
56 57
d0
ECC REPORT 96
Page $%
Betwor. layout As shown in figure 6*% abo(e
* 3ural en(ironment
- 3-sector confi-uration for M!S networ4
- bisector confi-uration for GSM-R networ4
- GSM-R fre.uency reuse /8 as shown in fi-ure3-*.
-1* sites 5i.e.8 &1 cells 5sectors33 with wrap-around for M!S
- M!S #ell radius R;2&""m8 cell ran-e 2R;&"""m8 inter-site distance 3R; 1&"" m
5as shown in fi-ure 3-13
-GSM-R cell ran-e < 8 4m
-+istance between GSM-R radio site and railway< 2" m
System
parameters
7#+M) 0 antenna gain with cable loss included Q $8d0i
0 antenna height ,bsQ58 mN
UE antenna height ,msQ$'8 m
0*UE MC4Q%" d0
0 antenna(?8R hori-ontal opening) radiation pattern is referred to 62PP
T3 28'%!? ;?'"'" (2""5*"6)) ection A'6 (Anne+)
UE antenna gain " d0i (omni*directional pattern)
GSM-R 0 antenna gain with cable loss included Q $8d0i
M antenna height ,msQ5'8 m (train mounted M)
0*M MC4Q<"'8 d0
0 antenna(?8R hori-ontal opening) radiation pattern is referred to 62PP
T3 28'%!? ;?'"'" (2""5*"6)) ection A'6 (Anne+)
Train mounted M antenna gain 2 d0i (omni*directional pattern)
Ser6ices 7#+M) 8 4bps Speech 5chip rate< 3.8% Mcps3
o ,b(:t tar-et 5downlin43< 1.* d9
o Eb#Bt target (uplin.)1 ?'$ d0
GSM-R Speech
SI:R tar-et 5downlin43< * d9 for speech and 12 d9 for data
SI:R tar-et 5uplin43< / d9
'ropa-ation
model
7#+M)
and GSM-R
$o-=normal=>adin- ; 1" d9
3ural area propagation model (,ata model)
4 5R3; /*.&& K2?'$? log fG$6'%2log(,b)KH55'!*?'88log(,b)IlogR ? %.185$o-
f3
2
@18.33 lo- f -%".*% ? a5Am3
,b is 0 antenna height abo(e ground in m) f is fre:uency in M,-) 3 is
distance in .m) ,m is the M antenna height in m'
a (,m) Q H$'$9log(f) * "'<I9,m * H$'8?9log(f) * "'%I

=ith ,bQ58m) ,mQ$'8m) fQ!2" M,-) the propagation model for UMT UE
is simplified as
4$( 3) Q65'$9log(3) K !8'?
=ith ,bQ58m) ,mQ5'8m) fQ!2" M,-) the propagation model for 2M*3 M
is simplified as
42( 3) Q65'$9log(3) K %<'!
The path loss from a transmitter antenna connector to a recei(er antenna
connector (including both antenna gains and cable losses) will be determined
by1
PathS4oss Q ma+ (4(3) K 4ogSnormalS/ading * 2ST+ G 2S3+)
/reeSpaceS4oss K 4ogSnormalS/ading * 2ST+ G 2S3+) MC4)
where
2ST+ is the transmitter antenna gain in the direction toward the recei(er
ECC REPORT 96
Page $!
antenna) which ta.es into account the transmitter antenna pattern and cable
loss)
2S3+ is the recei(er antenna gain in the direction toward the transmitter
antenna) which ta.es into account the recei(er antenna pattern and cable loss)
4ogSnormalS/ading is the shadowing fade following the log*normal
distribution'
#ell selection 7#+M) )s per 3G'' !R 2&.*%2
GSM-R )s for 7#+M) in 3G'' !R 2&.*%28 but with only one lin4 selected at random
within a 3 d9 hando6er mar-in
SIR
calculation
7#+M) )s per !R 2&.*%28 e0cept for the followin- chan-es<
Interference contributions from GSM !RBs or MSs are added to the total
noise-plus-interference.
'rocessin- -ain is chan-ed to 2/.8 d9 for 8 4bps
!hermal noise le6el is -1"3 d9m for uplin4
!hermal noise le6el is raised to -*/ d9m for downlin4
GSM-R !otal noise-plus-interference is sum of thermal noise8 GSM-R co-channel8 and
7#+M) interference. #ells are synchronised on a time slot basis. )dCacent
channel GSM interference is ne-lected.
:oise floor 5downlin43< -111 d9m
:oise floor 5uplin43< -113 d9m
'ower
#ontrol
assumption
7#+M) )s per 3G'' !R 2&.*%2
21 d9m terminals
Ma0imum 9S power< %3 d9m
Ma0imum power per +$ traffic channel< 3" d9m
Minimum 9S power per user< 1& d9m.
Minimum , power< ?&" d9m.
!otal ##A power< 33 d9m
GSM-R StabiliDation al-orithm same as for 7#+M) 5#(I based3 with a mar-in of &
d9 added to the SIR tar-et.
Ma0imum power 5!R03< %3 d9m
Minimum power 5!R03< 1" d9m 5radio fre.uency carrier with power
control3
Ma0imum power 5MS3< 3* d9m
Minimum power 5MS3< & d9m
#apacity 7#+M) #apacity loss 6ersus )#IR as per 3G'' !R 2&.*%2
GSM-R $oad to ma0imum number of users and obser6e chan-e in outa-e 5i.e.8 ".& d9
less than SI:R tar-et3
)#IR 7#+M) to
GSM-R
)s per spectrum mas4s defined in !S 2&.1"18 !S 2&.1"% 5applyin- the
appropriate measurement 97 correction38 unless capacity loss is found to be
si-nificant.
GSM-R
(d0) ) ( ) ( ) AC73(
" "
f f m f # f +
GSM-R 9!S to 7#+M) ,<
#onsider 3G'' !S%&""& GSM 9!S transmitter emission mas4 for *"" band
and 7#+M) , recei6er selecti6ity slope8 m ; ".8 d9 ( 2"" 4AD
GSM-R MS to 7#+M) 9S<
#onsider 3G'' !S%&""& GSM-R MS transmitter emission mas4 for *"" band
and 7#+M) 9S recei6er characteristics8 m ; ".& d9 ( 2"" 4AD
Ta()* 04%@ S?77ar6 o+ .97?)a-9o, 8ara7*-*r. +or -#* "o4*F9.-*,"* (*-**, UMTS900 a,; GSM4R
ECC REPORT 96
Page 2"
39:?r* 049@ GSM4R +r*A?*,"6 r*?.*
2M*3 carriersP arrangement relati(e to UMT carrier and the 2M*3 fre:uency re*use plan are gi(en in figure 6*!'
3.2.%.3 Interference analysis method
7nterference between UMT operating in the !"" M,- band and 2M*3 was analy-ed with the method of Monte*Carlo
simulations' The same simulation tools used for the sharing study between UMT!"" and 2M!"" as described in ECC
3eport %2H2I was used for performing simulations for the co*e+istence between UMT!"" and 2M*3 based on the co*
e+istence scenario described abo(e'
The ob&ecti(e of Monte*Carlo simulations is to determine the interference between UMT!"" and 2M*3 at different
carrier separations and at different space separations between the railway line and UMT sites'
AC73 (alues for UMT >4#U4 as (ictims and for the 2M system (used in this study as 2M*3) >4#U4 as (ictims at
carrier separations of 2'% M,- and 5'% M,- are calculated and described in the ECC 3eport %2 H$I' They are summari-ed
in tables 6*% and 6*!'
Carrier separation 2'% M,- 5'% M,-
UMT U4
as (ictim
UMT >4
as (ictim
UMT U4
as (ictim
UMT >4
as (ictim
AC73 (d0) 56'$ 6"'8 E 5<'5 E 6"'8
Ta()* 048@ ACIR +or UMTS UL/DL a. E9"-97 #*, (*9,: 9,-*r+*r*; (6 GSM4R UL/DL
Carrier separation 2'% M,- 5'% M,-
2M*3 U4 as
(ictim
2M*3 >4 as
(ictim
2M*3 U4 as
(ictim
2M*3 >4 as
(ictim
AC73 (d0) 6$'6 8" 56'6 ?6
Ta()* 049@ ACIR +or GSM4R UL/DL a. E9"-97 #*, (*9,: 9,-*r+*r*; (6 UMTS UL/DL
Two simulation cases were studied1
$) 2M*3 >4 outage degradation based on C#7 threshold due to interference from UMT 0'
2) UMT uplin. capacity loss due to interference from 2M*3 % = train mounted M'
$2 $6 $4 $ $! $5 $2 $6 $4 $ $! $5
$
$6
$5 $4 $2
$0
$ $!
2"8 MHz
$
$6
$5 $4 $2
$0
$ $!
2"8 MHz
ECC REPORT 96
Page 2$
3.2.%.% Simulation results
6'2'5'5'$ 'robability of GSM-R +$ outa-e 5E3
The simulated 2M*3 >4 outage with speech ser(ice C#7Q! d0 without interference from UMT based on the fre:uency
reuse plan gi(en in figure 6*! is nearly -ero' The probability of 2M*3 >4 outage (C#7Q! d0) as a function of AC73
between UMT carrier and the nearest 2M*3 carrier for different space separation distances between UMT 0 site and
railway line (d" as indicated on figure 6*% and distance shift r in table 6*?) was simulated' The simulation cur(es for
different distance offsets are plotted in figure 6*$"'
39:?r* 0410/ Pro(a(9)9-6 o+ GSM4R DL O?-a:* =G> =C/IH9 ;B>
As shown in figure 6*$") at the operating point AC73Q8" d0 which corresponds to a carrier separation of 2'% M,- between
the UMT carrier and the nearest 2M*3 carrier) the 2M*3 >4 outage probability is smaller than "'$8O for the worst
case when UMT sites are co*aligned with 2M*3 railway sites' =hen UMT sites are not on the railway trac.) the
interference is e(en smaller' =hen the railway and UMT sites are separated by 2$?8 m) 2M*3 >4 outage probability is
smaller than "'"58O) and when the separation distance is 566" m) the 2M*3 >4 outage probability is below "'"$8O'
/rom the simulation results) it can be considered that the interference from UMT >4 to 2M*3 >4 train*mounted M is
under acceptable le(el) and that no additional guard band is re:uired for the protection of 2M*3 >4' Thus UMT can be
deployed in the same geographical area with a carrier separation of 2'% M,- between the UMT carrier and the nearest
2M*3 carrier'
/or the co*e+istence scenario between UMT!"" and 2M*3 described in section 6'2'5'$ and simulation assumptions
described in section 6'2'5'2) simulations on the interference from UMT!"" >4 to 2M*3 >4 reception of train mounted
M ha(e 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 carrier
and the nearest 2M*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 to
the downloadable file of this report)'
ECC REPORT 96
Page 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
P
r
o
b
a
b
i
l
i
t
y

!
"
#
%&'()*+9 d,- &.-
%&'()*+2d,- &.-
39:?r* 0410a@ Pro(a(9)9-6 o+ .97?)a-*; C/I o, GSM4R DL ;?* -o 9,-*r+*r*,"* +ro7 UMTS900 BS
The simulation results gi(en 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 ha(e been carried out in order to assess the worst*case situations corresponding to the 2M*3 de(ices at
the cell*edge' The considered carrier separation between UMT and nearest 2M is 2'% M,-'
Two distinct scenarios ha(e been in(estigated' The first one is based on the scenario described in section 6'2'5'$ and
6'2'5'2) in which the 0T antenna height is fi+ed at 58 m and the 2M*3 cell range is % .m' The distance between the
2M*3 0T and the 2M*3 train mounted M (,msQ5'8m) is randomly drawn between < and % .m for the different
snapshots) in order to simulate the situation in which the 2M*3 train mounted M is far from the ser(ing base station and
is at the cell edge' The figure below shows this worst case 2M*3 configuration simulated in eamcat'
" .m < .m % .m
2M*3 de(ices
randomly drawn
39:?r* 0410(@ Po.9-9o, o+ GSM4R -ra9, 7o?,-*; MS r*)a-9E* -o -#* .*rE9,: BS
ECC REPORT 96
Page 26
An additional scenario was also consideredN the antenna height is reduced to 28 m) as well as the cell range to 8 .m' /or
this case) the 2M*3 train mounted Ms are randomly distributed between 5 and 8 .m in order to simulate the situation in
which the 2M*3 train mounted M is far from the ser(ing base station and is close to the cell edge'
/or both scenarios) the distance between UMT sites and 2M*3 railway is ") i'e' the UMT 0 sites are placed along the
railway' (see figure 6*% in section 6'2'5'$'6)'
The following table gi(es the simulated probability of interference from UMT!"" 0 to the 2M*3 train mounted M
when considering a C#7 ratio of respecti(ely ! d0 and $2 d0'
Antenna height Position of 2M*3
Users
eparation distance between
UMT 0 and 3ailway
C#7 (2M*3 >4) Probability of
interference
58 m <*% .m " $2 d0 "'28 O
! d0 "'"? O
28 m 5*8 .m " $2 d0 "'$5 O
! d0 "'"5 O
Ta()* 049a@ Pro(a(9)9-6 o+ 9,-*r+*r*,"* +ro7 UMTS900 BS -o GSM4R -ra9, 7o?,-*; MS
7t can be seen that e(en for the C#7 of $2 d0) the probability of interference is smaller than "'28 O) which is below the
re:uired "'8O outage le(el'
6'2'5'5'2 M!S $ #apacity $oss 5E3
imulation results of UMT uplin. capacity loss (O) as a function of AC73 between the UMT carrier and the nearest
2M*3 carrier for different distance offsets are plotted in figure 6*$$'
As shown in figure 6*$$) at the operating point AC73Q56'$ d0 (which corresponds to a carrier separation of 2'% M,-
between the UMT carrier and the nearest 2M*3 carrier)) the UMT U4 capacity loss due to interference from 2M*3
train mounted M is smaller than $'8O) for the worst case when UMT sites are co*aligned with 2M*3 railway (i'e' with
distance offset rQ")' =hen UMT sites are not co*aligned with the railway trac.) the interference is e(en smaller' =hen the
railway and UMT sites are separated by 2$?8 m or 566" m) UMT U4 capacity loss is smaller than "'6O'
7t should be noted that the UMT uplin. capacity loss is simulated for the whole UMT networ.) some of the UMT cells
are more impacted by the interference from 2M*3 U4 than other cells' Cell no' 6$ (one of the nearest cell to railway
trac.) in the networ. layout shown in figure 6*% was found to be the worst cell' The UMT uplin. cell capacity loss for a
single cell can not be easily simulated) but it can be calculated based on the recei(ed noise rise recorded for a specific cellN
using the B*pole capacity formula with <8O reference cell load) the uplin. cell capacity loss can be estimated' The
obtained U4 cell capacity loss for cell no'6$ is $'!8O) for the case when UMT sites are co*aligned with the railway trac.
(rQ")'
39:?r* 0411@ UMTS UL "a8a"9-6 )o.. =G> ;?* -o 9,-*r+*r*,"* +ro7 GSM4R UL
ECC REPORT 96
Page 25
As described in the abo(e section) 2M*3 U4 power control is acti(ated in the simulations' The simulated 2M*3 train
mounted 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#
P
r
o
b
a
b
i
l
i
t
y

!
$
P
%
&
P
'
#

!
"
#
39:?r* 041$@ S97?)a-*; GSM4R -ra9, 7o?,-*; MS TF 8o*r ;9.-r9(?-9o,
7f 2M*3 U4 power control is not acti(ated) all 2M*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 UMT
U4 capacity loss due to interference from 2M*3 train mounted M could become much more important' 7n that case)
UMT operators may need to ta.e care of that problem by using site engineering solutions to reduce the potential
interference from 2M*3 U4 when the UMT networ. is using the 8 M,- channel ad&acent to 2M*3 band'
3.2.%.& )nalysis summary
Under the assumptions described abo(e) the Monte*Carlo simulation results show that the impact on 2M*3 >4 by the
potential interference from UMT >4 is (ery low) and a carrier separation of 2'% M,- between the UMT!"" carrier and
the nearest 2M*3 carrier should be enough' =hen 2M*3 U4 power is used) the simulation results indicate the
UMT!"" networ. capacity loss is below 8O e(en though some of the UMT!"" cells near the railway trac. will ha(e
more capacity loss than other cells' 7n the case where 2M*3 uplin. power control is not used) the simulation results show
that 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 2M*3) the simulation assumptions described in section
6'2'5) and the simulation results and analysis on 2M*3 >4 outage probability and UMT U4 capacity loss) the following
conclusions can be made1

UMT!"" can be deployed in the same geographical area in co*e+istence with 2M*3 as follows1
power UMT 0 close to the railway trac.s) bloc.ing etc) which would lead to assumption of possible direct line of
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.)'
on UMT U4 capacity could be important when the UMT networ. is using the 8 M,- channel ad&acent to the 2M*
3 band' ,owe(er) it has to be recogni-ed that this is only applicable in low speed areas as elsewhere the use of uplin.
control in 2M*3 will cause significantly increased call drop out rates'
ECC REPORT 96
Page 28
band) where site engineering measures and#or better9 filtering capabilities (pro(iding additional coupling loss in order
to match the re:uirements defined for the critical#specific cases) may be needed in order to install UMT sites close to
the railway trac. when the UMT networ. is using the 8 M,- channel ad&acent to the 2M*3 band'
7t has to be noted that this study did not address tunnel co(erage' ite sharing) which is e+pected to impro(e the
coe+istence) has not been studied either'
0/0 Co78a-9(9)9-6 "o,.9;*ra-9o, (*-**, UMTS900 a,; PMR/PAMR
3.3.1 #haracteristics of (MR)("MR systems
e(eral radio systems will potentially use the PM3#PAM3 fre:uency band) such as TET3A) C>MA PAM3) TAP) etc'
3.3.1.1 #+M) ')MR system characteristics
The system description of C>MA PAM3 can be found in ET7 harmoni-ed standard EB 6"$ 55! for C>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,-) %<"*%<?
/re:uency band (>4) (M,-) !$8*!2$
Carrier separation (M,-) $'28
Modulation TPJ#0PJ
0*M MC4 (d0) <" (Urban area)
%" (3ural area)
BS MS
Ma+imum T+ power (d0m) 56 26
Thermal noise (d0m) *$$6 *$$6
Boise figure (d0) 8 !
Boise floor (d0m) *$"% *$"5
3ecei(er sensiti(ity (d0m) *$$! *$$5
5" (3ural)
$'8
Antenna gain (d0i) $< "
/eeder loss (d0) 2 "
AC (d0) 88 ?%
Ta()* 0410@ Ma9, CDMA PAMR .6.-*7 8ara7*-*r.
ECC REPORT 96
Page 2?
/or MfM =ithin the 3ange Applicability Emission 4imit
<8" to %%8 J,- ingle Carrier *58*$8(MfM*<8")#$68 d0c in 6" .,-
%%8 to $$28 J,- ingle Carrier *?"*8(MfM*%%8)#25" d0c in 6" .,-
$'$28 to $'!% M,- ingle Carrier *?8 d0c # 6".,-
$'!% to 5'"" M,- ingle Carrier *<8 d0c # 6".,-
5'"" to ?'"" M,- ingle and Multiple Carrier *6? d0m # $"".,-
?'"" to 58'"" M,- ingle and Multiple Carrier *58 d0m # $"".,-
E 58'"" M,- ingle and Multiple Carrier
*6? d0m # $ .,-N
*6? d0m # $"
.,-N
*6? d0m # $""
.,-
*6" d0m # $ M,-N
! .,- D f D $8" .,-
$8" .,- D f D 6" M,-
6" M,- D f D $ 2,-
$ 2,- D f D $2'8 2,-
Ta()* 0411@ CDMA PAMR BS .8*"-r?7 7a.k =Tra,.79--*r ?,a,-*; *79..9o, )979-. +or Ba,; C)a.. 1$>
/or f within the range MfM
=ithin the 3ange
Applicability Emission 4imit
$'!% to 5'"" M,- ingle Carrier *$"" d0c # 6".,-
5'"" to ?'"" M,- ingle and Multiple Carrier *?$ d0m # $"".,-
E?'"" M,- ingle and Multiple Carrier *?$ d0m # $"".,-
Ta()* 041$@ A;;9-9o,a) BS Tra,.79--*r ?,a,-*; *79..9o, )979-. +or Ba,; C)a.. 1$
9-#9, -#* +r*A?*,"6 ra,:* 8%64912 M5B
/or MfM =ithin the 3ange Emission 4imit
%%8 .,- to $'$28 M,- *5< G < U (MVfM G %%8) # 268 d0c in 6" .,-
$'$28 M,- to $'!% M,- *85 G $6 U (MVfM G $$2") # %?" d0c in 6" .,-
$'!% M,- to 5'"" M,- *?< G $8 U (MVfM G $!%") # 2"2" d0c in 6" .,-
5'"" M,- to $"'" M,- *8$ d0m in $"" .,-
E$"'" M,- *6? d0m#$ .,-N
*6? d0m#$" .,-N*6?
d0m#$"" .,-N*6"
d0m#$ M,-N
! .,- D f D $8" .,-$8"
.,- D f D 6" M,-6" M,-
D f D $ 2,-$ 2,- D f D
$2)<8 2,-
Ta()* 0410@ CDMA PAMR MS S8*"-r?7 7a.k =U,a,-*; *79..9o, )979-. +or 7o(9)* .-a-9o,.>
/re:uency Ma+imum E'3'P#
reference bandwidth
6" M,- f D $ """ M,- *6? d0m#$"" .,-
$ 2,- f D $2)<8 2,- *6" d0m#$ M,-
/c$ * 5 M,- D f D /c2 K 5 M,- Bo re:uirement
BATE $1 Centre fre:uency of first carrier fre:uency (/c$) used by the base station'
BATE 21 Centre fre:uency of last carrier fre:uency (/c2) used by the base station'
BATE 61 Bote $ and Bote 2 assume contiguous fre:uencies otherwise multiple e+clusion bands
will apply'
Ta()* 0411@ BS S8?r9o?. *79..9o, =Ra;9a-*; ?,a,-*; *79..9o,. r*A?9r*7*,-.>
ECC REPORT 96
Page 2<
/re:uency 4imit (E'3'P)#
reference bandwidth
idle mode
4imit (E'3'P)#
reference bandwidth
traffic mode
6" M,- f D $ """ M,- *8< d0m#$"" .,- *6? d0m#$"" .,-
$ 2,- f D $2)<8 2,- *5< d0m#$ M,- *6" d0m#$ M,-
/c * 5 M,- D f D fc K 5 M,- Bo re:uirement Bo re:uirement
BATE1 fc is the nominal M transmit centre fre:uency'
Ta()* 0412@ MS Ra;9a-*; ?,a,-*; *79..9o,. r*A?9r*7*,-.
3.3.1.2 !,!R) system characteristics
The main TET3A system characteristics are summari-ed in tables 6*$? to 6*$%'
TETRA
/re:uency band (U4) (M,-) %<"*%<?
/re:uency band (>4) (M,-) !$8*!2$
Carrier separation (M,-) 28 .,-
0*M MC4 (d0) <" (Urban area)
%" (3ural area)
BS MS
Ma+imum T+ power (d0m) 56 6"
3ecei(er bandwidth (.,-) $% $%
Thermal noise (d0m) *$6$ *$6$
Boise figure (d0) 8 !
Boise floor (d0m) *$2% *$25
3ecei(er sensiti(ity (d0m) *$"? *$"6
5" (3ural)
$'8
Antenna gain (d0i) $5 "
/eeder loss (d0) 2 "
3ecei(er protection ratio (d0) $! $!
Ta()* 0416@ Ma9, TETRA .6.-*7 8ara7*-*r.
/re:uency Affset 6" d0m
Mobile tation
55 d0m 0ase
tation
28 .,- * 6" d0m * $? d0m
8" .,- *5" d0m * 2? d0m
<8 .,- *5" d0m * 2? d0m
$"" * 28" .,- *58 d0m * 6? d0m
28" * 8"" .,- *8" d0m * 5$ d0m
8"" .,- * frb * 8" d0m * 5? d0m
E frb * <" d0m * 8? d0m
Ta()* 041%@ TETRA S8*"-r?7 Ma.kD
9measured in an $% .,- bandwidth'
9frb is the edge of the recei(e band belonging to the TET3A M#0' The minimum unwanted emissions re:uirement is
* 6? d0m for fre:uency offsets of 28) 8" and <8 .,- and * <" d0m for higher offsets'
ECC REPORT 96
Page 2%
/re:uency Affset M 0
8" * $"" .,- * 5" d0m *5" d0m
$"" G 2"" .,- * 68 d0m * 68 d0m
2"" G 8"" .,- * 6" d0m * 6" d0m
E 8"" .,- * 28 d0m * 28 d0m
Ta()* 0418@ TETRA R*"*9E*r B)o"k9,:
3.3.2 Interference analysis considerations
7t can be seen that the UMT!"" U4 fre:uency bloc. (%%"*!$8 M,-) is ad&acent to the PM3#PAM3 system (C>MA
PAM3 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 at
around !$8 M,-'
ECC 3eport %2 (section 6'8'8'6) H$I indicated that UMT outdoor UE transmitting power is relati(ely small) at !"O
percentile) the simulated outdoor UE transmit power is *22'5 d0m' 0y considering that the minimum coupling loss between
UE and PM3#PAM3 0 is relati(ely large (%" d0 is used in ECC 3eport %2 between UE and 0 in rural area) compared to
the MC4 between UMT 0 and 2M*3 Train Mounted M) and since the UE is mo(ing) the interference from UMT
UE to PM3#PAM3 0 should not be a problem' /or detailed analysis of interference between UMT UE and PM3#PAM3
0) Monte*Carlo simulations should be performedN this is not co(ered in this report'
The worst interference case is the interference from PM3#PAM3 0 to UMT 0) as shown in figure 6*$6'
3.3.2.1 'otential interference between M!S*"" and #+M) ')MR at *1& MAD
7nterference from C>MA PAM3 0 operating between !$<*!2$ M,- to 2M!"" 0 operating below !$8 M,- with a
fre:uency separation of 2'$8 M,- was analy-ed in ECC 3eport 5$ H<I'
As described in ECC 3eport 5$ H<I) a fre:uency separation of 2'$8 M,- between 2M!"" operating below !$8 M,- and
C>MA PAM3 operating abo(e !$< M,- is not sufficient for the protection of 2M!"" 0 recei(erN coordination between
2M!"" and C>MA PAM3 is recommended in ECC 3eport 5$ H<I'
39:?r* 0410@ Wor.- I,-*r+*r*,"* ."*,ar9o (*-**, CDMA PAMR ;o,)9,k a,; UMTS900 ?8)9,k
As shown in figure 6*$6) the potential interference from C>MA*PAM3 0 can desensiti-e UMT!"" 0 recei(er if the
protection is not sufficient'
UMT!"" system parameters are described in ECC 3eport %2H$I' The interference protection le(el for UMT!"" 0
recei(er is *$$" d0m#6'%5 M,- and the AC of UMT!"" 0 recei(er is 5?'2 d0'
0ased on the C>MA PAM3 0 spectrum mas. for band class $2 gi(en in tables 6*$$ and 6*$2) for a guard band of "'?
M,- between a UMT!"" carrier below !$8 M,- and a C>MA PAM3 carrier abo(e !$8 M,-) the re:uired MC4
between UMT!"" 0 and C>MA PAM3 0 is !8'? d0' =hen using a free space propagation model) the space

'DM/-%/MR900
UMTS900
'DM/-%/MR900
UMTS900
ECC REPORT 96
Page 2!
separation between UMT!"" 0 and C>MA PAM3 0 antennas is in the order of % .m' ,owe(er) when using the ,ata
propagation model) the separation distance becomes $'8 .m'
60
70
80
90
00
006 2 ! 4
Guard band !M)*#
M
C
L
39:?r* 0411@ R*A?9r*; MCL =;B> 9, +?,"-9o, o+ :?ar; (a,;
The re:uired MC4 as function of guard band is gi(en 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) pace
separationN b) e+ternal filter'
3.3.2.2 'otential interference between M!S*"" and !,!R) at *1& MAD
The ad&acent compatibility study between 2M!"" and TET3A or TAP at !$8 M,- was described in ECC 3eport 8 H!I
showing that without any guard band or other interference mitigation techni:ues) interference from TET3A#TAP 0 will
desensiti-e 2M!"" 0 recei(ers' 7n order to protect the 2M!"" 0 recei(er operating below !$8 M,-) se(eral
interference mitigation techni:ues were recommended in ECC 3eport 8 for the protection of 2M!"" 0 recei(ers) such
as 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 abo(e !$8 M,- respecti(ely) by considering that UMT!"" 0 is
more sensiti(e to interference than 2M!"") the ma+imum tolerable interference le(el for the protection of UMT 0
recei(er is of *$$" d0m#6'%5 M,-' 0y applying the interference analysis method described in ECC 3eport 8) similar
conclusions can be made that without interference mitigation techni:ues there will be serious interference from a
TET3A#TAP 0 transmitter to UMT!"" 0' Thus UMT!"" 0 recei(ers will be desensiti-ed due to strong
interference from TET3A#TAP' The following interference mitigation techni:ues can be used to reduce the interference
from TET3A#TAP to UMT!"" 01
i) 2uard 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 abo(e !$8 M,- will
cause recei(er desensiti-ation of UMT!"" 0 operating below !$8 M,-' 7n order to protect UMT!"" 0) the utili-ation
of interference mitigation techni:ues is necessary1
$) 3educed PM3#PAM3 0 T+ powerN
2) patial separation by coordination between operatorsN
6) E+ternal filtersN
5) 2uard band'
7t is more li.ely that a combination of these interference mitigation techni:ues should be used in order to ensure the
compatibility between UMT!"" operating below !$8 M,- and PM3#PAM3 (C>MA PAM3) TET3A) TAP) operating
abo(e !$8 M,-'
ECC REPORT 96
Page 6"
0/1 Co78a-9(9)9-6 .-?;6 (*-**, UMTS900 a,; DME
3.&.1 !M* and UMS system characteristics
Protection criteria for the aeronautical radiona(igation ser(ice
The protection criteria for the aeronautical radiona(igation ser(ice are e+tracted from 3ecommendation 7TU*3 M'$?6!'
3ecommendation 7TU*3 M'$?6! gi(es the e:ui(alent power flu+*density (EP/>) le(el which protects stations of the
aeronautical radiona(igation ser(ice (A3B) from emissions of radiona(igation satellites of all radiona(igation*satellite
ser(ice (3B) systems operating in the $ $?5*$ 2$8 M,- band'
7t recommends that the ma+imum allowable epfd le(el from all space stations of all 3B systems should not e+ceed G
$2$'8 d0(=#(m
2
W M,-))) in order to protect the A3B in the band $ $?5*$ 2$8 M,-'
The instantaneous epfd is calculated using the following formula1
1
1
]
1
a i
' :
i
ma0 r
i r
i
i t
G
G
d
G
epfd
$
)
) (
5
) (
$" log $"
2
$"
$"
5,.uation 13
where1
:a 1 number of space stations that are (isible from the recei(er
i 1 inde+ of the space station considered
'i 1 3/ power at the input of the antenna (or 3/ radiated power in the case of an acti(e antenna) of the
transmitting space station (d0(=#M,-))
i 1 off*a+is angle between the boresight of the transmitting space station and the direction of the
recei(er
Gt(i) 1 transmit antenna gain (as a ratio) of the space station in the direction of the recei(er
di 1 distance (m) between the transmitting station and the recei(er
i 1 off*a+is angle between the pointing direction of the recei(er and the direction of the transmitting
space station
Gr(i) 1 recei(e antenna gain (as a ratio) of the recei(er) in the direction of the transmitting space station
(see 3ecommendation 7TU*3 M'$5%")
Gr8ma0 1 ma+imum gain (as a ratio) of the recei(er
epfd 1 instantaneous epfd (d0(=#(m
2
W M,-))) at the recei(er
ECC REPORT 96
Page 6$
The ma+imum allowable aggregated EP/> le(els 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-ation
mismatch
6'5 d0i
(8'5 d0i antenna gain
G2 d0 polari-ation mismatch)
6
Effecti(e area of " d0i antenna at
$ $<? M,-
G22'! d0(m
2
)
5
3B (all systems) aggregate epfd
in $ M,-
G$"!'8 d0(=#(m
2
W
M,-))
Combine $) 2 and 6
($ minus 2 minus 6)
8 afety margin ? d0
3ecommendation
7TU*3 M'$5<<
?
Apportionment of 3B
interference to all the
interference sources
? d0
Apportion 28O of total
permissible interference to
3B
< Ma+imum 3B aggregate epfd X$2$'8 d0(=#(m
2
W M,-))
Combine 5) 8 and ?
(5 minus 8 minus ?)
Ta()* 04$0@ 7aF97?7 a))oa()* a::r*:a-*; EP3D )*E*) -o 8ro-*"- ARNS +ro7 RNSS
BATE $ G This (alue is based on a G$2! d0= C= interference threshold specified for international
>ME systems used by ci(il a(iation' Measurement has demonstrated that an 3B signal spread o(er
$ M,- would ha(e the same effect as a C= signal on >ME performance'
Tra,.8o.9-9o, -o UMTS 900
A more con(enient way to con(ert the abo(e criteria to UMT !"" is to e+press it as a P> recei(ed at the >ME antenna
port) including the safety margin and the apportionment) as gi(en in table 6*2$'
Para7*-*r 'a)?* R*+*r*,"*
$
>ME interference threshold (at
>ME antenna port)
G$2! d0(=#M,-)
2 afety margin ? d0
3ecommendation
7TU*3 M'$5<<
6
Apportionment of UMT
interference to all the
interference sources (M7>) /3)
etc')
? d0
Apportion 28O of total
permissible interference to
UMT' 7t is noted that
higher percentage could
be considered in the band
!?"*!??'8 M,-'
5
Ma+imum UMT aggregate P>)
recei(ed at the >ME recei(er
input) including the safety margin
and the apportionment
$5$ d0(=#M,-)
Combine $) 2 and 6
($ minus 2 minus 6)
Ta()* 04$1@ MaF97?7 a))oa()* a::r*:a-*; PSD )*E*) -o 8ro-*"- ARNS +ro7 UMTS900
The following aggregated P> (alue must not e+ceed *$5$ d0(=#M,-)1
1
1
]
1
,
_
a
i
'
:
i i
i r i t
d
G G 'S+
$
2
5
) ( ) ( $" log $"
$"
$"

5,.uation 23
ECC REPORT 96
Page 62
where 1
:a 1 number of UMT !"" base stations that are (isible from the recei(er (>ME)
i 1 inde+ of the base station considered
'i 1 3/ power at the input of the antenna the transmitting UMT !"" base station (d0(=#M,-))
F 1 wa(e length
i 1 off*a+is angle between the boresight of the transmitting UMT !"" base station and the direction
of the recei(er (>ME)
Gt(i) 1 transmit antenna gain of the base station in the direction of the recei(er (>ME)
di 1 distance (m) between the transmitting base station and the recei(er
i 1 off*a+is angle between the pointing direction of the recei(er and the direction of the transmitting
UMT !"" base station
Gr(i) 1 recei(e antenna gain of the recei(er (>ME)) in the direction of the transmitting UMT !"" base
station
'S+ 1 instantaneous P> (d0(=#(M,-))) at the recei(er (>ME)
7t has to be noted that the threshold abo(e was established by measurement of a number of >ME airborne recei(ers
(interrogator recei(er) under (arious signal conditions and confirmed that the effect of an 3B signal) when spread o(er $
M,-) had the same effect on the >ME recei(er as does C=' As the >ME specification re:uires correct performance in the
presence of C= at *$2! d0(=#M,-)) this was gi(en as the appropriate ma+imum le(el for all 3B interference'
The same assumption was made when modelling the effect of the interference from UMT!"" on >ME' This is &ustified
by the nature of the UMT!"" signal (=*C>MA spread signal)'
S*- o+ DME 8ara7*-*r.
G /re:uency of band of operation1 !?"*$2$8 M,-
G 3ecei(ing fre:uency (in the simulation) 1 !?2) !?5) !?? and !<$ M,-
G Polari-ation1 linear) (ertical (so no polari-ation loss should be considered)
G Ma+imum >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 $!2 m)) which
gi(es ma+imum (isibility of potentially interfering base stations from the A3B recei(ing antenna'
G >ME electi(ity mas.1
o DME 11$ Ro"k*)) Co))9,./ T#* a--*,?a-9o,. 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,*6*))/ T#* a--*,?a-9o,. ar*
? d0 at *"'$8 M,-#K"'65 M,- (*"'?8 M,-#K"'%5 M,- from the central fre:uency)
2" d0 at *"'2? M,-#K"'5% M,- (*"'<? M,-#K"'!% M,- from the central fre:uency)
5" d0 at *"'2! M,-#K"'5! M,- (*"'<! M,-#K"'!! M,- from the central fre:uency)
?" d0 at *"'6" M,-#K"'8" M,- (*"'%" M,-#K$'"" M,- from the central fre:uency)
7t has to be noted that the (alues of the selecti(ity mas.s ha(e set to <" d0c beyond 28"O of the bandwidth (K#*
2'8 M,-) with a linear interpolation between ?" and <" d0c'
ECC REPORT 96
Page 66
ARNS a,-*,,a "#ara"-*r9.-9".
The information in the following /ig' $8(a)'a is e+tracted from 3ecommendation 7TU*3 M'$?52 and pro(ides the antenna
gain for different ele(ation angles' /or intermediate ele(ation angles (between two defined (alues)) a linear interpolation
should be used' The Gr) ma0 (alue is 8'5 d0i as specified in 3ecommendation 7TU*3 M'$?6!' 7t is assumed that the ele(ation
and gain pattern is the same for all a-imuth angles'
The rele(ant range of ele(ation angles for the study to be conducted is1 *!"RY"R) as shown in /ig' $8(a)'
EF-ra"- +ro7 R*"/
ITU4R M/161$
E)*Ea-9o, a,:)* ;*+9,9-9o,
E)*Ea-9o,
a,:)*
=;*:r**.>
A,-*,,a :a9,
Gr/Gr! ma+
=;B>
G!" G$<'22
G%" G$5'"5
G<" G$"'8$
G?" G%'%5
G8" G8'5
G5" G6'$6
G6" G"'8<
G2" G$'"%
G$" "
G8 G$'2$
G6 G$'<$
G2 G$'!8
G$ G2'$!
" G2'56
39:?r* 0412=a>@ DME a,-*,,a :a9, +or *)*Ea-9o, a,:)*. (*-**, 0IJ490I
Pro8o.*; 8ara7*-*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 ha(e not been
considered' 7t has to be noted that this figure represents a fully loaded cell'
G A(erage cell radius 1 8 .m
G Unwanted emissions characteristics 1 see Table 6'22 below
G Channel pacing 1 8 M,-
G Ma+imum antenna gain including the feeder loss 1 $8 d0i
G 3ecei(er 0andwidth 1 6%5" J,-
G Ele(ation antenna pattern 1 3ecommendation 7TU*3 /'$66?*2
G A-imuth antenna pattern 1 omni*directional
G >owntilt 1 2'8R
G Antenna height 1 6" m
/or information) a comparison between the out*of*band emissions of UMT*!"" and 2M !"" is a(ailable in section
6'2'2'2'
"R
*!"R
ECC REPORT 96
Page 65
3r*A?*,"6 o++.*-
-o -#* UMTS
"*,-ra) +r*A?*,"6
Po*r ;*,.9-6 ="a(9,*- o?-8?-> Po*r
9, 2 M5B
L*E*) 9, ;B"
Aut of band
domain
2'8 M,- f D 2'<
M,-
*$5 d0m#6" .,- % d0m *68 d0c
2'< M,- f D 6'8
M,-
4inear interpolation 4inear
interpolation
4inear
interpolation
f Q 6'8 *2? d0m#6" .,- *5 d0m *5< d0c
6'8 M,- D f
$2'8 M,-
*$6 d0m#$ M,- *? d0m *5! d0c
purious domain
f Q$2'8 M,- to
fre:uencyQ$ 2,-
*6? d0m#$"" .,- *$! d0m *?2 d0c
/re:uencyE$ 2,- *6" d0m#$ M,- *26 d0m *?? d0c
Ta()* 04$$@ U,a,-*; *79..9o,. "#ara"-*r9.-9". +or UMTS900
Co77o, 8ara7*-*r.
G /re:uency plan is gi(en in table 6*26
880
M5B
912
M5B
9$2
M5B
960
M5B
UMT*U4 UMT*>4 >ME
Ta()* 04$0@ +r*A?*,"6 8)a,.
Pro8a:a-9o, 7o;*)@
G /ree space loss (3ecommendation 7TU*3 P'828) 1 all the base stations are (isible from the aircraft) without
any obstacle'
3.&.2 #ase Study
The interference on the >ME comes from all the base stations which ha(e (isibility of the aircraft at its altitude) see /ig' 6*
$8(b)' Considering a fre:uency re*use scheme of $) each base station transmits 6 carriers at full power' The base stations
generate 6 sub*interferences at the following fre:uencies1
f$Q!8<'8 M,- ($
st
ad&acent channel interference to be considered)
f2Q!82'8 M,- (2
nd
f6Q!5<'8 M,- (6
rd
7n practise) each UMT!"" base station may transmit more than 6 carriers but the other ones are not considered in these
simulations'
ECC REPORT 96
Page 68
39:?r* 0412=(>@ S"*,ar9o o+ -#* .-?;6
The principles are1
To distribute the base stations on the terrestrial dome seen by the >ME (placed e(ery $" .m)N
To assess the aggregated signal generated by signals from the base stations at f$) f2 and f6N
To compare this aggregated signal to the threshold of *$5$ d0(=#M,-)'
3.&.3 Interference analysis results
Ca)"?)a-9o, o+ -#* ACIR
The UMT!"" AC43 and >ME AC are plotted in figure 6*$?(a)) AC73 of >ME as function of fre:uency separation and
as guard band are respecti(ely gi(en in figures 6*$? (b) and (c)'
0T 1 f
$)
f
2
) f
6
0T 1 f
$)
f
2
) f
6
0T 1 f
$)
f
2
) f
6
0T 1 f
$)
f
2
) f
6
0T 1 f
$)
f
2
) f
6
0T 1 f
$)
f
2
) f
6
0T 1 f
$)
f
2
) f
6
0T 1 f
$)
f
2
) f
6
0T 1 f
$)
f
2
) f
6
>ME
0T 1 f$) f2) f6
ECC REPORT 96
Page 6?
=a> UMTS900 ACLR a,; DME ACS
=(> ACIR a. +?,"-9o, o+ +r*A?*,"6 .*8ara-9o,
ECC REPORT 96
Page 6<
="> ACIR a. +?,"-9o, o+ :?ar; (a,;
39:?r* 0416@ Ca)"?)a-9o, o+ -#* ACIR
N?7(*r o+ E9.9()* (a.* .-a-9o,.
The number of (isible base stations as a function of aircraft altitude is gi(en in figure 6*$<'
39:?r* 041%@ N?7(*r o+ E9.9()* (a.* .-a-9o,.
Ca)"?)a-9o, o+ -#* UMTS a::r*:a-* PSD
The calculated UMT aggregate P> and corresponding margin to add for satisfying the interference criteria for three
>ME fre:uencies are gi(en in /ig' 6*$%'
7t has to be noted that the two >ME e:uipments mentioned pre(iously ha(e been considered in the calculations'
Additionally) the results inherent to an ideal >ME filter are gi(en in the following table for information'
ECC REPORT 96
Page 6%
>ME
fre:
calculated UMT aggregate P> additional margin needed
!?%
M,-
!<"
M,-
!<2
M,-
39:?r* 0418@ Ca)"?)a-*; UMTS a::r*:a-* PSD a,; "orr*.8o,;9,: 7ar:9, -o a;; -o .a-9.+6 -#* 9,-*r+*r*,"* "r9-*r9a
ECC REPORT 96
Page 6!
3.&.& "nalysis of the results
The selecti(ity of two >ME airborne recei(ers has been measured' ,owe(er) the characteristics of the recei(ing
filter are only gi(en for the range "'8*$'8 M,- from the central fre:uency' Ane can easily assume that the filter
continues to decrease after this (alue but in the absence of data) the filter has been considered as flat after these
(alues'
The parameters of the UMT e:uipment are based on the 62PP standards) e+cept for the base station antenna
pattern 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 ($2""" m)'
The results are nearly the same for the two >ME e:uipments considered'
2i(en the data which ha(e been ta.en into account (and e+pressed in the pre(ious paragraphs)) some additional
isolation (to satisfy the interference criteria) may be needed to ma.e the compatibility between UMT!"" and
>ME possible) and particularly if the >ME fre:uency is below !<2 M,-' 7t has to be noted that the (alue of this
additional isolation depends on the (alue of the >ME carrier1
3)9:#- 8#a.* DME 11$ Ro"k*)) Co))9,. a,; DME KN 6$A 5o,*6*))
DME "arr9*r
!?2 M,- !?5 M,- !?? M,- !?% M,- !<" M,- !<2 M,-
" mDaltitudeD$""m $8 $8 $8 $6 $2 <
$"" mDaltitudeD8""m $2 $2 ! ! < 2
8"" mDaltitudeD2""" m $" $" % % ? "
Cruise ! ! ? ? 5 "
ECC REPORT 96
Page 5"
Ta()* 04$1@ a;;9-9o,a) 7ar:9, ,**;*; =;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.' E(en
when considering the pea. of traffic) a minority of UMT 0 is fully loaded and is transmitting at Pma+' The
operators and manufacturers ha(e confirmed the consideration of a traffic load factor for the design of their
networ.s' The ma+imum (alue for a loaded cell is assumed to be %"O) whereas an a(erage (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 of
interference for UMT!"") when the number of UMT!"" cells considered is low (i'e' when the altitude of the
aircraft is low)' ,owe(er) when the altitude of the aircraft is higher) it is reasonable to consider the a(erage load
factor (alue (because the number of the base stations considered is high)' 2i(en the number of (isible base
stations as shown in the following figure1
it may be assumed that the a(erage (alue can be applied from an altitude of $""m ($8" base stations seen
by an aircraft)1
;alue of the traffic load factor
Altitude of the aircraft D$""m %"O
Altitude of the aircraft E$""m 8"O
ECC REPORT 96
Page 5$
Ma+imum antenna gain of the UMT!"" base stations1 The (alue of $8 d0i (including feeder loss) has been
considered which corresponds to the rural case' ,owe(er) it is recogni-ed that the antennas deployed in urban
areas ha(e commonly a gain of $2 d0i (including feeder loss)' The ratio of one antenna type compared to the other
one is currently not defined'
7t has also to be noted that if certain parameters are ad&usted according to the pre(ious bullets) those ad&ustments ha(e to be
consistent (E'g 1 a rural case could correspond to an antenna gain of $8 d0i including feeder loss associated to a low traffic
load)'
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 ele(ation angle of
*2"#*28R (see table 6*22)'
7t should also be noted that no compatibility study between 2M!"" and systems operating in ad&acent band had been
performed prior to the deployment of 2M!""' This has not been represented a problem so far since the aeronautical
e:uipments do not currently use the part of the band &ust abo(e !?" M,-1
The lowest fre:uency used by >ME is !<< M,-N
The lowest fre:uency used by TACAB is !<% M,-'
According to the recogni-ed international a(iation standards) the fre:uency range for the >ME is !?2*$2$8 M,- and
carriers lower than !<< M,-) such as !?2 M,-) may also be deployed in the future' 7n any case) the use of TACAB#>ME
below !<" M,- re:uires additional protection so that the compatibility in ad&acent band with UMT!"" can be ensured'
Moreo(er) it has to be noted that the fre:uencies &ust abo(e !?" M,- are also under consideration under the A7 $'? of the
ne+t =3C for the de(elopment of new aeronautical mobile systems in that band'
3.&.' Miti,ation techni-ues and miti,ation effects
Mitigation techni:ues and mitigation effects are therefore re:uired) such as1
The reduction of the out*of*band UMT!"" emission1 this is achie(ed with the use of UMT!"" base stations
with out*of*band performances better than the re:uirement defined in the 62PP specifications (e'g'1 filtering)N this
may not be technically feasible to ensure the protection of all >ME fre:uencies' (e'g'1 !?2 to !?? M,-)N
ite engineering for the UMT !"" base stations situated in#near the airports to achie(e additional protection for
the ta.eoff#landing phases N this can be implemented only on a limited number of base stations (which depends on
the nature of the specific site engineering measures)N
Consideration of a sufficient guard band) considering that there is already a $'8 M,- guard band (!?"*!?$'8
M,-)N
E+amination of lower apportionment margin1 it has to be noted that the military M7> system does not operate in
the lower part of the band (!?"*!??'8 M,-)N therefore) the apportionment margin can be reduced' This reduction
has not been considered in the abo(e calculations' The appropriate (alue of the apportionment is 6 d0 if the
interferences to >ME are assumed to e:ually come from UMT!"" and the potential /3 system (/utur 3adio
ystem) considered under the agenda item $'? of the =3C*"<' This is sub&ect to the result of the =3C*"<' 7t has
also to be noted that the /3 system is not li.ely to be deployed before 2"2"' Therefore the apportionment should
be alle(iated as follows1
ECC REPORT 96
Page 52
0efore the deployment of the /3
system (before 2"2")
After the deployment of the /3
!?" G !??'8 M,- Apportionment Q " d0 Apportionment Q 6 d0
7n the upper part of the band (!??'8 G !<" M,-)) the interferences from the M7> ha(e also to be considered'
,owe(er) M7> is a fre:uency hopping system that hopes on 8$ fre:uencies) the first ones of which are !?!) !<2
and it is recogni-ed that the interferences from UMT!"" abo(e !<2 are negligible' The (alue of the
apportionment is calculated as follows1
2#8$9F (M7>) KF (UMT!"") Q$ (before 2"2")
FQ"'!? OQ "'$? d0
2#8$9F (M7>) KF (/3) KF (UMT!"") Q$
FQ"'5!OQ 6'$ d0
=hich gi(es1
0efore the deployment of the /3
After the deployment of the /3
!??'8 *!<2M,- Apportionment Q "'$? d0 Apportionment Q 6'$ d0
This leads to the conclusion that the interferences from M7> ha(e a negligible effect'
3.&.. #onclusions
Under the assumptions described abo(e) the following preliminary conclusions can be made based on simulation results
and interference analysis1
Bowadays) the lowest >ME fre:uency is !<< M,-' 4ower fre:uencies are planned to be used for >ME in a near
futureN
As long as the >ME fre:uencies are abo(e !<2 M,-) the electromagnetic compatibility between >ME and UMT
!"" is ensured without any care to be ta.enN
3egarding the fre:uencies from !?" to !<2 M,-) the only mitigation techni:ues) in order to ensure the
compatibility between the >ME system and UMT!"") that would bring sufficient isolation are1 additional
filtering and a larger guard band' ,owe(er these two mitigation techni:ues are not &udged applicable for the
following reasons1
o Additional filtering1 the UMT!"" manufacturers ha(e clearly indicated that) nowadays) it is not
technologically feasible to pro(ide the sufficient margin needed (compared to the specified out*of*band
emission mas. considered in the abo(e calculations) without affecting the le(el of the transmitted power
in the transmitting band (it is recogni-ed that the introduction of additional filtering creates insertion
losses of se(eral d0s on base stations transmission power le(el that need to be balanced by increasing
deployment density)N
o 4arger guard band1 the abo(e calculations ha(e shown that an additional $" M,- guard band (to the
e+isting $'8 M,- guard band) is needed' This is unacceptable for both UMT!"" and ci(il a(iation
communitiesN
There is a need for consideration of this issue on a European conte+t) on the regulatory aspect' 7t is necessary that
a common approach be used within Europe to ensure the compatibility'
7t has to be noted that the impact 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'
ECC REPORT 96
Page 56
0/2 Co78a-9(9)9-6 .-?;6 (*-**, UMTS900 a,; MIDS
3.'.1 System parameters and co-e+istence scenario
3.&.1.1 >re.uency band plan
The fre:uency band plans for M7> and UMT!"" are shown in figure below1
%%" !$8 !28 !?" !?! $2"?
UMTS900
Mobile station
transmit
UMTS900
0ase station
transmit
MIDS
Terminals
recei(e
UMT!"" fre:uency band is arranged as follows1
G Uplin. (UE transmit) 0 recei(e) 1 %%" G !$8 M,-
G >ownlin. (0 transmit) UE recei(e) 1 !28*!?" M,-
G Carrier separation1 8 M,-
M7> fre:uency band is arranged as follows1
M7> operates in the !?" to $2$8 M,- band) with M7> fre:uencies occurring e(ery 6 M,- between !?!
to $2"? M,-' Two sub*bands centered on $"6" M,- and $"!" M,- are e+cluded because they are used by
7//'
3.&.1.2 System parameters
6'8'$'2'$ UMT!"" parameters
The characteristics of UMT!"" system are summari-ed in the table6'28 below'
Para7*-*r IMT4$000 CDMA D9r*"- S8r*a; =UMTS900>
Carrier spacing 8 M,- t n U "'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 $" Mbit#s are supported by technology
enhancements (,>PA)
Modulation type TPJ
Emission bandwidth 62PP T28'$"5
Transmitter AC43 for macro#micro# pico 0 62PP T28'$"5
$st ad&acent 58 d0 Z t 8 M,-
2nd ad&acent 8" d0 Z t $" M,-
Transmitter spurious emissions 62PP T28'$"5
3ecei(er bloc.ing le(els 62PP T28'$"5
ECC REPORT 96
Page 55
Ta()* 0/$2@ UMTS900 (a.* .-a-9o, 8ara7*-*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 ha(e a realistic representation of UMT!"" e:uipments) two types of cells ha(e been considered1 macro and
micro1
Ma"ro C*)) M9"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 directi(e)
P73E 8%d0m 52d0m
Antenna height 5"m 8m
;ertical aperture ?R
>owntilt 2)8R "R
/or micro cell and macro cells) unwanted emission limits in the out*of band domain and in the spurious domain are defined
below1
K3 LIMIT
Aut of band domain $
st
ad&acent channel [ 8 M,- %& d9c
2
nd
ad&acent channel [ $" M,- &" d9c
purious domain
(in accordance with 7TU*3 M62!)
0etween !?"M,- and $ 2,- *6?d0m in $"".,-
or*$! d0m in 8 M,-
0etween $2,- and $2 2,- *6"d0m in $M,-
or *26 d0m in 8 M,-
Ather assumptions ta.en in the study1
Emission fre:uency of the base station1 !8<'5 M,- (highest UMT!"" channel between !88 and !?" M,-)N
7t is assumed that the UMT!"" antenna has no attenuation in the recei(ing band of M7> (!?!*$2"? M,-)' This
represents a worst caseN
The UMT!"" base station transmits continuously'
6'8'$'2'2 MI!S parameters
M7> (Multifunctional 7nformation >istribution ystem) is a tactical military system' The M7> recei(er to consider is the
M7> terminal) integrated in a shelter' The antenna is mounted on a $? metres mast' The terminal mode to consider is the
fre:uency hopping mode (8$ fre:uencies)' The lowest fre:uency is !?! M,-'
ECC REPORT 96
Page 58
R*"*9E*r MIDS -*r79,a)
0andwith 8 M,-
/eeder loss 8 d0
Antenna gain ! d0i
Antenna height $? metres
E:ui(alent downtilt K 6R
6 d0 beam width in the
(ertical plane
$?R
,ori-ontal plan omni
Ta()* 0/$6@ MIDS -*r79,a) 8ara7*-*r.
39:?r* 0419@ MIDS -*r79,a) *)*Ea-9o, a,-*,,a ;9a:ra7
MIDS -*r79,a)
a,-*,,a
"
$"
2"
6"
5"
8"
?"
<"
%"
!"
$""
*!" *%" *<" *?" *8" *5" *6" *2" *$" " $" 2" 6" 5" 8" ?" <" %" !"
*)*Ea-9o, =;*:r*>
G
a
9
,

=
9
,

G
>
$""" M,- $$"" M,- $2"" M,-
ECC REPORT 96
Page 5?
Other assumptions taken in the study:
The fre:uency used in the simulation is !<" M,-N
The hopping fre:uencies are as follows1
N Frequency (MHz) N Frequency (MHz) N Frequency (MHz)
0 969 17 1062 34 1158
1 972 18 1065 35 1161
2 975 19 1113 36 1164
3 978 20 1116 37 1167
4 981 21 1119 38 1170
5 984 22 1122 39 1173
6 987 23 1125 40 1176
7 990 24 1128 41 1179
8 993 25 1131 42 1182
9 996 26 1134 43 1185
10 999 27 1137 44 1188
11 1002 28 1140 45 1191
12 1005 29 1143 46 1194
13 1008 30 1146 47 1197
14 1053 31 1149 48 1200
15 1056 32 1152 49 1203
16 1059 33 1155 50 1206
Protection from the unwanted emissions of an interfering system1 criterion nR$
Measurements ha(e been performed in a /rench >o> laboratory to assess the protection criteria of M7> recei(er'
The cur(es of the permissible le(el of a signal which is out of the M7> band) ha(e been pic.ed out1 for a
transmission at !?" M,-) there is no degradation of the M7> terminal performances as long as the power of the
transmitter remains below *$" d0m (the reference is a C= signal)'
Boise le(el permissible in the M7> channel1 criterion nR2
An the same line as in the pre(ious paragraph) measurements on M7> recei(er gi(e a permissible noise le(el e:ual
to *$"6d0m) for one of the 8$ channels) i'e' *$"5 d0m#8 M,-) ta.ing into account $d0 margin
This tolerated (alue allows to obtain an acceptable M7> sensiti(ity referred to M7> (ystem egment
pecification)'
7nterference threshold e+pressed as an interfered fre:uencies rate
The M7> recei(er can tolerate a certain number of interfered channels amongst the 8$ channels used) without any
performance degradation' This threshold is classified and is not gi(en in this document' This interference threshold)
without being communicated in the report for security reason) is co(ered by the criterion nR2) when assessing the
number of fre:uencies for which the permissible noise floor is e+ceeded'
ECC REPORT 96
Page 5<
3.&.1.3 'ropa-ation model
Propagation model used is 7T' This model is usually used for M7> studies) in /rance as well as in UA (BT7A)'
3.&.1.% Simulation confi-uration
The simulation configuration is gi(en in the figure 6*2" below'

39:?r* 04$0@ I))?.-ra-9o, o+ -#* .97?)a-9o, "o,+9:?ra-9o,
3.'.2 I,-*r+*r*,"* a,a)6.9. a,; .97?)a-9o, r*.?)-.
3.&.2.1 $e6el of the M!S*"" si-nal recei6ed by the MI+S terminal 5out of the MI+S recei6in- band3
The aim of this section is to assess the interference from the UMT!"" base station in the UMT!"" band) according the
"r9-*r9o, ,I1 described abo(e'
UMT base station
antenna
>istance between the M7> terminal and
the UMT base station
Antenna height
M7> terminal
ECC REPORT 96
Page 5%
6'8'2'$'$ imulation results
Macro cell
The following cur(es gi(e the le(el of the UMT!"" signal as a function of the distance between the UMT!"" base
station and the M7> terminal1
39:?r* 04$1@ MACRO (a.* .-a-9o, -ra,.79--*; 8o*r r*"*9E*; (6 -#* MIDS -*r79,a) =;9.-a,"*L1k7>
39:?r* 04$$@ MACRO (a.* .-a-9o, -ra,.79--*; 8o*r r*"*9E*; (6 -#* MIDS -*r79,a) =;9.-a,"*L2k7>
A,a)6.9.@
=hate(er the distance between the UMT!"" base station and the M7> terminal is) the ma+imum authori-ed le(el of *$"
d0m is not e+ceeded' Ma+imum le(el e:ual to *2$d0m is reached for a distance from 2""m to 2%"m'
Micro cell
The following cur(es gi(e the le(el of the UMT!"" signal as a function of the distance between the UMT!""
ECC REPORT 96
Page 5!
39:?r* 04$0@ MICRO (a.* .-a-9o, -ra,.79--*; 8o*r r*"*9E*; (6 -#* MIDS -*r79,a) =;9.-a,"*L1k7>
A,a)6.9.@
The le(el of *$" d0m is ne(er reached' Ma+imum le(el e:ual to *6%d0m is reached for a distance of $?"m'
6'8'2'$'2 Conclusion according to criterion nR$
Considering the protection cur(es of M7> recei(er) there is no ris. of saturation caused by UMT signal'
3.&.2.2 $e6el of the M!S*"" si-nal recei6ed by the MI+S terminal 5in the MI+S recei6in- band3
The aim of this section is to assess the interference from the UMT!"" base station in the UMT!"" band) according the
"r9-*r9o, ,I$ described abo(e'
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)
39:?r* 04$1@ UMTS900 BS ?,a,-*; *79..9o, =7a"ro "*))>
ECC REPORT 96
Page 8"
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 le(el of *$"5 d0m for the noise floor was settled abo(e' This le(el 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 !<2 M,- to $""" M,- ($" M7> channels)
The fre:uencies from $""" to $2"? M,- (5" M7> channels)
This gi(es 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 abo(e) the permissible interfered fre:uency rate is not gi(en 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)*#
P
o
w
e
r

i
n

d
(
m
/
-

M
)
*
%12er 3 4! d,4 - M/'R5 ce66
ECC REPORT 96
Page 8$
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 below
corresponds to the UMT macro*cell'
The ma+imum calculated (alue of UMT signal (macro*cell)) for the fre:uency !?" M,-) is *2$ d0m at the input of the
M7> recei(er terminal' The corresponding distance is from 2"" to 2%" metres' This gi(es (based on the section 8'$'$)1
A le(el of *<$ d0m#8 M,- in the !?! M,- M7> channel)
A le(el of *%6 d0m#8 M,- in the $" following M7> channel)
A le(el of *%< d0m#8M,- for the rest of the M7> channels'
=hate(er the channel is) the threshold of the noise le(el of *$"5 d0m#8M,- is e+ceeded' To respect this le(el of *$"5
d0m#8M,-1
* for the $" channels in the !<"*$"""M,- band) an additional isolation of 2$ d0 is necessary to ensure the nominal
performances of M7>' ,owe(er) as mentioned pre(iously) performance degradation is tolerated in this fre:uency
range'
* for the highest 5" channels) an additional isolation of $< d0 is necessary'
6'8'2'2'5 Minimum separation distance for the protection of M7>
7f we consider an UMT spurious le(el of *$"5d0m#8M,- in the $""" * $2"?M,-) that means an UMT signal of
*6%d0m (//d9c)1 the separation distance between UMT and M7> e:ui(alent to the necessary propagation loss can be
read on figure 81 the minimum separation distance is 2.m'
7f we consider an UMT spurious le(el of *$"5d0m#8M,- in the !<"*$"""M,-) that means an UMT signal of *52d0m
(/2d9c)1 the minimum separation distance between UMT and M7> is 6 .m'
6'8'2'2'8 ensiti(ity 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 62PP specifications' Ane can assume that the e:uipments will
ha(e better performances than their specifications without .nowing how'
The pre(ious section showed that) in order to be certain to respect the criteria nR2 e(ery time for e(ery distance) an
additional isolation of $< d0 (or 2$d0 if we consider the !<"*$"""M,- band) would be needed' This occurs for a distance
from 2""m to 2%" metres between the UMT!"" base station and the M7> recei(er'
7f 2"" metres between both system is a satisfactory distance (from 2""m to 2%") there is no change)) which correspond to a
(alue of *2$ d0m (MAC3A base station) at the input of the M7> recei(er) this leads to a le(el of1
A le(el of *<$ d0m in the !?! M,- M7> channel)
A le(el of *%6 d0m in the $" following M7> channel)
A le(el of *%< d0m for the rest of the M7> channels'
To respect this le(el of *$"5 d0m for the highest 5" channels) an additional isolation of $< d0 would be necessary'
ECC REPORT 96
Page 82
A distance of 2"" metres would be sufficient if the spurious mas. of UMT!"" is $< d0 better than the specifications' The
additional protection can be calculated function of the separation distance1
eparation
>istance
4e(el on M7>
recei(er
4e(el recei(ed on the last
M7> fre:uencies
Additional protection
D2""
m
D*2$ d0m D*%< d0m E$< d0
2""
m
*2$ 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
<""
m
*2% d0m *!5 d0m $" d0
%""
m
*2! d0m *!8 d0m ! d0
!""
m
*6" d0m *!? d0m % d0
$"""
m
*62 d0m *!% d0m ? d0
$8""
m
*6? d0m *$"2 d0m 2 d0
2"""
m
" d0
39:?r* 04$2@ a;;9-9o,a) 8ro-*"-9o, +?,"-9o, o+ ;9.-a,"*
6'8'2'2'? Practical performance of unwanted emissions of UMT !"" base stations
The section 6'8'2'2'8 pro(ides the re:uired separation distance as a function of the le(el of the UMT !"" base stations
unwanted emissions' 7f there is an additional isolation of $< d0 on the spurious emissions of the UMT !"" base
station abo(e $ 2,-) then there is no re:uired separation distance'
ome manufacturer stated that the spurious emissions of the UMT!"" 0 for the fre:uency range between $ 2,-
and $'2 2,- will be lower than the specifications with a margin E $< d0 as re:uired for the protection of M7>
terminals'
/ddi7i1na6 8r17ec7i1n
$unc7i1n 1$ 9M)DS(UMTS 4acr1 ce669 di:7ance
0
5
0
5
20
200 !00 400 500 600 700 800 900 000 500
distance !m#
d(
ECC REPORT 96
Page 86
,owe(er) the abo(e elements are based only on the information a(ailable 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,")?.9o,.
This ad&acent band compatibility study between UMT!"" (operating below !?" M,-) and the M7> (operating
abo(e !?! M,-) considers the impact of the main UMT!"" signal in its band (below !?" M,-) and the unwanted
emissions (abo(e !?" 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 CT7>#M7>) which operates in the band !?"*$2$8 M,- under the
conditions of pro(ision 5'5 of the 3adio 3egulations'
To a(oid any interference on each M7> fre:uency the protection distance between UMT!"" base station and M7>
stations should be up to 2 .m accordingly to the table of section 8'8'
,owe(er) the protection should be reduced if the real unwanted emission le(el of the e:uipment is better than 62PP
specifications' To fully protect M7> without any protection distance) the unwanted emission le(el should be1
2$ d0 better than present 62PP specification in the !<"*$""" M,- band)
$< d0 better than present 62PP specification in the $""" * $2"?M,- M7> band (corresponding to the $*
$2'<82,- spurious band))
,owe(er) a performance degradation of the M7> can be tolerated1 this corresponds to interferences on the first $$
M7> channels' Conse:uently) if there is an additional isolation of $< d0 abo(e $ 2,- no additional separation
distance is re:uired to protect the M7> recei(er'
7nformation a(ailable to date about the performance of a base station designed by a single manufacturer shows that
practical le(el of unwanted emission pro(ides isolation higher than the $< d0 re:uired) according to section 6'8'2'2'?'
,owe(er) it will be important to ensure that the performances of other base stations which will be effecti(ely deployed
would also enable to pro(ide the re:uired protection to M7>'
0/6 Co,")?.9o,.
7n this chapter) the compatibility studies between UMT!"" and systems operating in ad&acent bands) including 2M*3)
PM3#PAM3 (TET3A) C>MA PAM3) TAP)) Aeronautical >ME) M7> ha(e been described' 0ased on the interferences
analysis) the following conclusions can be made1
power UMT 0 close to the railway trac.s) bloc.ing etc) which would lead to assumption of possible direct line
of 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.)'
on UMT U4 capacity could be important when the UMT networ. is using the 8 M,- channel ad&acent to the
2M*3 band' ,owe(er) it has to be recogni-ed that this is only applicable in low speed areas as elsewhere the use
of uplin. control in 2M*3 will cause significantly increased call drop out rates'
band) where site engineering measures and#or better9 filtering capabilities (pro(iding additional coupling loss in
order to match the re:uirements defined for the critical#specific cases) may be needed in order to install UMT
sites close to the railway trac. when the UMT networ. is using the 8 M,- channel ad&acent to the 2M*3 band'
7t has to be noted that this study did not address tunnel co(erage' ite sharing) which is e+pected to
impro(e the coe+istence) has not been studied either'
ECC REPORT 96
Page 85
8) Potential interference between UMT!"" 0 operating below !$8 M,- and PM3#PAM3 (C>MA PAM3)
TET3A) TAP) 0 operating at fre:uencies abo(e !$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) 2uard band
ECC REPORT 96
Page 88
The potential interference from UMT!"" to aeronautical >ME operating at fre:uencies abo(e !<2 M,- does not
represent any difficulty' The fre:uency range between !?"*!<2 M,- is not currently used by aeronautical >ME but
will be used in a near future' ome additional margins may be re:uired for the protection of aeronautical >ME
operating at fre:uencies between !?" and !<2 M,-) where the re:uired additional margins are dependent on >ME
carriers and aircraft positions' The studies ha(e shown that the only mitigation techni:ues) in order to ensure the
compatibility between the >ME system and UMT!"") that would bring sufficient isolation are1 additional filtering
and a larger guard band' ,owe(er these two mitigation techni:ues are not &udged applicable' Therefore) the report
suggests that a regulatory solution should be e+amined' 7t is necessary that a common approach be used within Europe
to ensure the compatibility'
/urther compatibility study will be necessary if this fre:uency range is to be used by >ME systems or future
aeronautical 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 o(er the fre:uency range between $""" M,- and $2"? M,- in reference to 62PP
technical specifications is re:uired for the protection of M7> terminal recei(er' 7nformation a(ailable to date
about the performance of a base station designed by a single manufacturer shows that practical le(el of unwanted
emission pro(ides isolation higher than the $< d0 re:uired) according to section 6'8'2'2'?' ,owe(er) it will be
important to ensure that the performances of other base stations which will be effecti(ely deployed would also
enable to pro(ide 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 feeder
loss)' A (alue of $2d0i was) howe(er) considered more realistic based on real networ. deployment' As a conse:uence the
interference is o(erstated by 6d0'
1 COMPATIBILITY STUDY BETWEEN UMTS1800 AND SYSTEMS OPERATING IN ADJACENT BANDS
1/1 S6.-*7. o8*ra-9,: 9, a;<a"*,- (a,;.
All systems operating in bands ad&acent to UMT$%"" are summari-ed in table 5*$'
/re:uency (M,-) ystem Bote
$<""*$<$" METAT
/i+ed * Telemetry
=eather atellite
>efense
1%1041%82 GSM1800 =UL>
UMTS1800 =UL>
$<%8*$%"" 3adio Microphones
/i+ed \ mobile
2uard bands ha(e been defined between
radio microphones and 2M$%""
=ireless 0roadband
$%""*$%"8 Under study in CEPT =ireless 0roadband) /le+ible use
180241880 GSM1800 =DL>
UMTS1800 =DL>
$%%"*$!"" >ECT
Ta()* 141@ S6.-*7. o8*ra-9,: 9, a;<a"*,- (a,;. o+ UMTS1800
0ased on the list of systems ad&acent to the UMT$%"" fre:uency band in table 5*$) the sharing studies between
UMT$%"" and the following systems are considered in this report1
$) >ECT
2) METAT
6) 3adio microphone
5) /i+ed ser(ice
ECC REPORT 96
Page 8?
1/$ Co78a-9(9)9-6 .-?;6 (*-**, 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,-) $'<2%
Modulation 2MJ
BS MS
Ma+imum T+ power (d0m) 25 d0m (28" m=) 25 d0m (28" m=)
3ecei(er bandwidth (M,-) $'$82 $'$82
Thermal noise (d0m) *$$6 *$$6
Boise figure (d0) $" $"
Boise floor (d0m) *$"6 *$"6
3ecei(er sensiti(ity (d0m) *!6 *!6
Antenna height (m) "'% $'8
Antenna gain (d0i) " "
/eeder loss (d0) " "
Ta()* 14$@ Ma9, DECT .6.-*7 8ara7*-*r.
Emissions on
3/ channel ]@^
Ma+imum
power le(el
Ma+imum
power le(el
/re:uency
Affset
$' @QMt$ 60 ; *% d0m /QK# *$'<2% M,-
2' @QMt2 $ = *6" d0m /QK# *6'58? M,-
6' @QMt6 %" n= *5$ d0m /QK# *8'$%5 M,-
5' @EMt6 5" n= *55 d0m any other channel
Ta()* 140@ S8*"-r?7 7a.k
Bote1 ]M^ is the E:uipment Under Test (EUT) transmitting channel (carrier) and ]@^ is a legal >ECT channel
other than the EUT transmit channel'
.mission due to modulation Mas/
-60
-50
-40
-!0
-20
-0
0
0
20
!0
01
&728 kHz-
21
&!456 kHz-
31
&584 kHz-
41
&692 kHz-
5d6acent D.C c7annels !fre,uency offset#
Ma
$i
mu
m
Ra
dia
ted
Po
we
r
!d
(
m#
D<'T 4a:k &d,4- 4ee7ing
7=e D<'T:7andard
D<'T e>"ui84en7
ac7ua6 ?a6ue: &d,4-
-8 d(m
!0M)*#
-3' d(m
!0M)*#
-44 d(m
!0M)*#
-49 d(m
!0M)*#
39:?r* 141@ DECT *79..9o, 7a.k

ECC REPORT 96
Page 8<
The spurious emissions shall not be greater than *6? d0m (28" n=) at fre:uencies below $ 2,- and *6" d0m ($ =) at
fre:uencies abo(e $ 2,-' The measurement bandwidth is gi(en in table 5*5'
/re:uency offset from
edge of band
3esolution
0andwidth
" * 2 M,- 6" .,-
2 * 8 M,- 6" .,-
8 * $" M,- $"" .,-
$" * 2" M,- 6"" .,-
Ta()* 141@ S8?r9o?. *79..9o, 7*a.?r*7*,- +9)-*r (a,;9;-#
The C#7 re:uirements are set with respect to the ability of >ECT e:uipment to continue recei(ing in the presence of an
interfering signal on the same or different >ECT 3/ channel' =anted signal le(el1 *<6d0m
7nterferer on
3/ channel
7nterfering
signal strength
C#7 /re:uency
3ange (M,-)
/re:uency at
2M band edge
(M,-)
@QMQ/" *%5 d0m $$ d0 /Q " $%%$'<!2
@QM K#* $ *?" d0m *$6 d0 / QK#* $'<2% $%%"'"?5
@QM K#* 2 *6! d0m *65 d0 / QK#* 6'58? $%<%'66?
@QM K#* 6 *66 d0m *5" d0 / QK#* 8'$%5 $%<?'?"?
Ta()* 142@ C/I r*A?9r*7*,-
The 3/ carriers ]@^ shall include the three nominal >ECT 3/ carrier positions immediately outside each edge of the
>ECT band'
3r*A?*,"6 =+> Co,-9,?o?. aE* 9,-*r+*r*r )*E*) Co77*,-.
28 M,- f $<%" M,- *26 d0m 2M M transmitter band
$<%" f 18%2 M5B *66 d0m 2M 0T transmitter band
M+43CM N 6 M5B *56 d0m 2M 0T transmitter band
$!"8 M,- D f 2""" M,- *66 d0m not rele(ant
2""" M,- Df $2'<8 2,- *26 d0m not rele(ant
Ta()* 146@ R*"*9E*r ()o"k9,:
9/C is >ECT 3/ channel (carrier) for wanted signal1 c Q ") $) ''' )!'
&.2.2 UMS1/00 system characteristics
UMT$%"" system parameters can be found in ECC 3eport %2' The UMT$%"" 0 system parameters used in the
compatibility study between UMT$%"" and >ECT are summari-ed in table 5*<'
ECC REPORT 96
Page 8%
UMTS 3DD 1800M5B
>ownlin. band (M,-) $%"8*$%%"
Uplin. band (M,-) $<$"*$<%8
Carrier separation (M,-) 8
Channel raster 2""
BS UE
Urban indoor 3ural outdoor Urban indoor 3ural outdoor
Ma+imum T+ power (d0m) 25 56 2$ 2$
3ecei(er bandwidth (M,-) 6'%5 6'%5 6'%5 6'%5
Thermal noise (d0m) *$"% *$"% *$"% *$"%
Boise figure (d0) 8 8 $2 $2
Boise floor (d0m) *$"6 *$"6 *!? *!?
3ecei(er sensiti(ity (d0m) *$$$ *$2$ *$$< *$$<
Antenna height (m) 2 6" $'8 $'8
Antenna gain (d0i) " $< " "
/eeder loss (d0) 6 6 " "
Cell radius (.m) "'6 $" "'6 $"
Ta()* 14%@ UMTS .6.-*7 8ara7*-*r.
7ndoor penetration parameters1
* =all 4oss (indoor # indoor)Q 8d0
* =all 4oss (outdoor # indoor)Q $2d0
&.2.3 Interference analysis between UMS1/00 and !*#
39:?r* 14$@ DECT +r*A?*,"6 (a,; 9. a;<a"*,- -o UMTS1800 DL
As shown in figure 5*2) the >ECT fre:uency band $%%"*$!"" M,- is ad&acent to the UMT$%"" downlin. bloc. $%"8*
$%%" M,- band' 7t is also ad&acent to the UT3A*T>> band $!""*$!2" M,-' The ad&acent band compatibility study
between >ECT and UT3A*T>> has been described in E3C 3eport ?8 H$$I' The ad&acent band compatibility study
between >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,-) currently
used by 2M$%"") is en(isaged for new UMT />> where the fre:uency plan will be1 $<$"*$<%8 M,- for the Uplin. and
$%"8*$%%" M,- for the >ownlin.' >ECT (>igital Enhanced Cordless Telecommunications) is a digital wireless
technology that is most commonly used for local cordless co(erage in both home and corporate phone systems' 7ndoor 3/P
(3adio /i+ed Part) with indoor PP (Portable Part) is the most common >ECT installation' Anly the impact on the UMT
$%"" >ownlin. is assessed because the fre:uency band is closest to the >ECT band'
To e(aluate interference between >ECT and UMT$%"" >4) the studies were done with the Monte*Carlo software
EAMCAT 6) e+cept when scenarios imply two fi+ed bases'
EAMCAT (pectrum Engineering Ad(anced Monte Carlo Analysis Tool) is a generic radio compatibility analysis
software tool de(eloped within the frame of the CEPT =or.ing 2roup pectrum Engineering (E)' 7t :uantifies the
interference le(el in scenarios in(ol(ing (ictim and interfering radio systems) by ta.ing into account the statistical nature of
recei(ed signals'
70
785 805
880
900
UMT$%"" U4
UMT$%"" >4
D<'T
UTR/-TDD
920
70
785 805
880
900
UMT$%"" U4
UMT$%"" >4
D<'T
UTR/-TDD
70
785 805
880
900
UMT$%"" U4
UMT$%"" >4
D<'T
70
785 805
880
900
805
880
900
UMT$%"" U4
UMT$%"" >4
D<'T
UTR/-TDD
920
ECC REPORT 96
Page 8!
=hen assessing the impact on UMT C>MA >4) calculations were done with EAMCAT 6 and conse:uently results are
e+pressed in term of capacity losses and number of dropped users' /or the impact on >ECT mobiles) the results are
e+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' 7n
case interference occurs on one channel) >ECT has the ability to select another one) without loss of communication' To
illustrate >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 ha(e been ta.en for this study' There are two main scenarios) where >ECT interferes with
UMT$%"" and when UMT$%"" interferes with >ECT' The list of co*e+istence scenarios is gi(en 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 the
first case) an abo(e*roof macro 0T (=ide Area 0) with indoor UE) and) in the other case) an indoor pico 0 (4ocal area
0) with indoor UE'
&.2.& Interference analysis and simulation results
/or different co*e+istence interference analysis scenarios described abo(e) Monte*Carlo simulations with EAMCAT ha(e
been performed and summarised below'
i1 Interference from !*# R2( to UMS 1/00 !%
UMS 1/00 indoor picocell !% as 3ictim
The simulation results of the interference from >ECT 3/P to indoor pico*cell UMT$%"" UE are gi(en in table 5*%'
>istance 3/P*UE i3 unwanted (d0m) i3 bloc.ing (d0m) Capacity loss (O)
8 m *$<!'< *$5?'! 6'86
$" m *$%"'6 *$5<'< 6'26
28" m *$%6'8 *$8"'2 6'"?
8"" m *$%! *$8?'8 2'85
Ta()* 148@ S97?)a-9o, r*.?)-. o+ 9,-*r+*r*,"*. +ro7 DECT -o 89"o4"*)) UMTS1800 DL =9,;oor>
These simulation results show that >ECT has (ery limited impacts on UMT$%"" >4' 7n the case +,#! +$ on M!S
18"" +$ indoor) the capacity loss ne(er e+ceeds 5O and the number of dropped users ne(er e+ceeds 8O of the total users'
The difference between the >ECT >ownlin. and Uplin. is not (ery rele(ant because the ma+imum T+ power) the
sensiti(ity and antenna gain are the same for the >ECT 3/P and PP' o) it can be assumed that there are no differences for
the 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 ne(er
e+ceeds 5O'
ECC REPORT 96
Page ?"
UMS 1/00 abo3e roof macro cell
The simulation results of the interference from >ECT 3/P to macro*cell UMT$%"" >4 (indoor) are gi(en in table 5*!'
>istance 3/P*UE i3 unwanted (d0m) i3 bloc.ing (d0m) Capacity loss (O)
8m *26"'? *$!<'6 6'5%
$"m *26"'? *$!<'5 6'58
28"m *26"'% *$!<'8 6'6$
8""m *26$ *$!<'! 6'2<
Ta()* 149@ S97?)a-9o, r*.?)-. o+ 9,-*r+*r*,"*. +ro7 DECT -o 7a"ro"*)) UMTS1800 DL =9,;oor>
7t can be seen that the results are similar to that for the case of interference from >ECT >4 to the picocell UMT $%"" >4
indoor) UMT$%"" >4 capacity loss due to interference from >ECT 3/P is below 5O'
ii1 Interference from UMS1/00 to !*#
/or theses scenarios where the (ictim lin. is not a C>MA system) the results are not e+pressed in term of capacity loss or
dropped user' The interference criterion is chosen as the probability of interference C#7_$"d0'
Interference from indoor pico-cell UMS1/00 to !*# ((
The simulation results of the interference from indoor pico*cell UMT$%"" to indoor >ECT PP are gi(en in table 5*$"'
>istance 0*PP i3 unwanted (d0m) i3 bloc.ing (d0m) 7nterference probability
(O)
$"m *%$'% *<?'! <5'?
2"m *!8'8 *!"'< 5?'6
6"m *$"5'$ *!!'2 2<'<
5"m *$$6'! *$"!'2 $<'?
8"m *$$?'$ *$$$'2 $2'!
?"m *$2$ *$$?'2 ?'8
?8m *$28'% *$2"'! 5'$
<"m *$6"'2 *$28'5 2'%
Ta()* 1410@ S97?)a-9o, r*.?)-. o+ 9,-*r+*r*,"*. +ro7 9,;oor 89"o4"*)) UMTS1800 -o DECT PP =9,;oor>
These results show that) for not e+ceeding an interference probability of 8O) an e+clusion -one of ?8 m has to be set
between the indoor pico*cell UMT$%"" 0ase tation and >ECT PP recei(ers' Atherwise) without an e+clusion -one) and
since interference is from indoor fi+ed pico*cell base stations) if an operator plans such a deployment) additional filtering
on these base stations might be needed to pre(ent the potential interference from pico*cell UMT$%"" 0 to >ECT PP'
Interference from outdoor macro-cell UMS1/00 to !*# ((
The simulation results of the interference from outdoor macro*cell UMT$%"" to indoor >ECT PP are gi(en in table 5*$$'
>istance 0*PP i3 unwanted (d0m) i3 bloc.ing (d0m) 7nterference probability
(O)
8"m *%$'8 *<?'? <<'2
$""m *$""'5 *!8'? 6<'6
2""m *$"<'6 *$"2'5 2?'?
6""m *$$$'8 *$"?'< $!'8
5""m *$$5'? *$"!'% $6'8
8""m *$$?'% *$$$'! !'6
?""m *$$%'2 *$$6'6 ?'%
<""m *$$!'? *$$6'% 5'!
Ta()* 1411@ S97?)a-9o, r*.?)-. o+ 9,-*r+*r*,"*. +ro7 o?-;oor 7a"ro4"*)) UMTS1800 -o DECT PP =9,;oor>
ECC REPORT 96
Page ?$
These results show that) so as not to e+ceed the interference probability of 8O) the first base station must be at <"" m
distance from the >ECT building' Boting that such an occurrence is (ery low in a rural en(ironment) a separation distance
from base stations to buildings using >ECT technology inside should not create any difficulty for UMT$%"" deployment'
&.2.' #onclusions
The simulation results described abo(e for the defined co*e+istence scenarios between UMT$%"" 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 deployed
inside of the buildings) as the interference between >ECT 3/P and PP and macro*cellular UMT$%"" 0 and UE is
not a problemN
2) =hen pico*cellular UMT$%"" 0 is deployed inside of the building in co*e+istence with >ECT 3/P and PP
deployed in the same building indoor area) some potential interference is li.ely to e+ist from indoor pico*cellular
UMT$%"" 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) A(oiding the ad&acent fre:uencies of $%%" M,- for indoor pico*cellular UMT$%"" 0 and >ECT or operate with
reduced transmitting power if necessary'
7n term of interference analysis) the >ECT system has the >CA (>ynamic Channel Allocation) mechanism which allows it
to a(oid 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$%"" indoor pico*cellular
deployment with the fre:uency channel ad&acent to the >ECT fre:uency band) the usage of some interference mitigation
techni:ue may be necessary to pre(ent potential interference to indoor >ECT 3/P or PP'
,owe(er) in practice) 2M$%"" 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'
1/0 Co78a-9(9)9-6 "o,.9;*ra-9o, (*-**, UMTS1800 a,; METSAT
&.3.1 Main characteristics of M*S"
Meteorological satellite ser(ice (pace to earth) system characteristics are described in 7TU*3 3ecommendation A'$$8%
H$"I' The main system parameters of the meteorological satellite system operating in the fre:uency range $?!%*$<$" M,-
are summari-ed in table 5*$2'
Meteorological satellite Earth tations are normally recei(ing data at ele(ation angles abo(e typically 8R but ha(e to
support occasional satellite passes with lower ele(ation angles'
ECC REPORT 96
Page ?2
Ta()* 141$@ M*-*oro)o:9"a) .a-*))9-* ;a-a ?.*; +or -#* .97?)a-9o,
&.3.2 Interference analysis considerations
39:?r* 140@ I,-*r+*r*,"* ."*,ar9o (*-**, UMTS =GSM> UL a,; METSAT DL
The compatibility between meteorological satellite and M (Mobile atellite ystem) has been studied and described in
7TU*3 3ecommendation A'$$8% H$"I' The compatibility between meteorological satellite Earth tations operating in the
fre:uency range $<""*$<$" M,- and 2M$%"" has not been studied' 2M$%"" has been deployed and in e+tensi(e use
o(er many years) and there has been no interference problem between 2M$%"" and METAT' As shown in figure 5*6 the
interference scenario between UMT#2M mobile station and METAT Earth tation ta.es into account that the
METAT Earth tation antenna radiation pattern has (ery small bac. lobes or side lobe) and that the possible interference
signal) if any) from ground mobile station is in principle strongly attenuated'
As shown in table 5*$) the METAT operating fre:uency range of $<""*$<$" M,- is ad&acent to the
UMT$%""#2M$%"" uplin. fre:uency bloc. at $<$"*$<%8 M,-' The AC43 of 2M$%"" mobile stations and
UMT$%"" UE are gi(en in ECC 3eport %2' 2M$%"" M ad&acent channel lea.age power ratio at 8 M,- is AC43Q56'%
d0#6'%5 M,-N for UMT$%"" UE AC43 Q 66 d0#6'%5 M,-'
Sa-*))9-*
Or(9- #*9:#-
=k7>
I,")9,a-9o,
=;*:r**.>
Lo*r +r*A?*,"6
=M5B>
U88*r +r*A?*,"6
=M5B>
/@*$ %<"
%<"
!%'<
!%'<
$ ?!%
$ <"8'8
$ <"6
$ <$"
METAP %2<
%2<
!%'<
!%'<
$ ?!%'<8
$ <"5'<8
$ <"6'28
$ <"!'28
PAT %22 !%'< $ <"6 $ <"8
METEA3 $ "2"
$ "2"
!!'?
!!'?
$ ?!%'8
$ <"6'8
$ <"$'8
$ <"?'8
BAAA %8"
%8"
!%'<
!%'<
$ ?!%'<8
$ <"5'<8
$ <"6'28
$ <"!'28
A>M7B$*A %5" !%'< $ ?!% $ <"2
A>M7B$*0 %5" !%'< $ <"2 $ <"?
A>M7B2*A %5" !%'< $ <"2 $ <"?
A>M7B2*0 %5" !%'< $ <"? $ <$"
A>M7B6 %5" !%'< $ <"? $ <$"
ECC REPORT 96
Page ?6
2M$%"" M ma+imum T+ power is of 6" d0m) without uplin. power control) the lea.age power of 2M$%"" M at its
8 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$%"" UE at its
8 M,- ad&acent fre:uency range is 2$ G 66 Q *$2 d0m' 0ut in fact) UMT uplin. power control is always acti(ated) and
the simulated outdoor UMT UE T+ power distribution results were described in ECC 3eport %2' At the !"O percentile)
the UMT UE T+ power is *22'5 d0m) and with this more realistic UMT UE T+ power) the UMT UE lea.age power at
its 8 M,- ad&acent fre:uency range is *22'5 G 66 Q *88'5 d0m) which is much lower than that of 2M$%"" M'
The potential interference from METAT >4 to UMT$%"" UE is not co(ered in this reportN this issue is left for future
further study if it appears necessary'
&.3.3 #onclusions
/rom the fre:uency arrangement between METAT and UMT$%"") the possible interference scenario is the interference
from UMT UE into METAT Earth tation' The METAT system has been in ad&acent operation with 2M$%"" for
many years) and as a matter of fact METAT Earth tations were not interfered with by 2M M transmissions' A
comparison of ad&acent lea.age power between 2M M and UMT UE indicates that the effecti(e UMT UE ad&acent
channel lea.age power is much lower than 2M ad&acent channel lea.age power) so it is belie(ed that the interference
from UMT UE to METAT Earth tations operating in ad&acent fre:uency band is unli.ely to be a problem'
1/1 Co78a-9(9)9-6 "o,.9;*ra-9o, (*-**, UMTS1800 a,; Ra;9o 79"ro8#o,*.
&.&.1 Main characteristics of Radio Microphones
3adio microphone system characteristics are described in E3C 3eport ?6H$6I) E3C#3EC <"*"6E H2$I) ET7 standard
EB6""522 H$5I) they are summari-ed in table 5*$6'
Parameter
;alue
Transmitter output power hand held $6 d0m (2" m=)
Transmitter output power body worn $< d0m (8" m=)
Transmitter spectrum mas. as set out in ET7 EB 6"" 522) shown in figure
5*5
0andwidth (*?" d0) analogue as set out in ET7 EB6"" 522 (ma+'
2"" .,-)
digital appro+' 6"" .,-
(which is not in compliance with ET7 EB
6"" 522)
0ody effect loss hand held ? d0
0ody effect loss body worn $5 d0
3ecei(er input power Analogue 1 * ?% d0m#<5 d0(L;#m)N
>igital1 * %8 d0m#8< d0(L;#m)
C#7 ratio Analogue1 28 d0
>igital1 $% d0
Ma+' interfering field strength Analogue1 5! d0(L;#m)
>igital1 6! d0(L;#m)
3ecei(er spectrum mas. hown in figure 5*8
Aperating modes indoor and outdoor
Channel selection no dynamic channel selection) fre:uency tuning
possible throughout the fre:uency range'
Ta()* 1410@ Ma9, "#ara"-*r9.-9". o+ ra;9o 79"ro8#o,*
ECC REPORT 96
Page ?5
,
$c @ 00!5,
$c - 00!5,
0d,
-0
-!0
-40
-50
-60
-70
-80
-90
-00
Un41du6a7ed
carrier
re$erence
$c - MHz
$c - , $c -
,
A
2
,
A
2
$c $c @
$c @ ,
$c @ MHz
$c + Tran:4i77er carrier $re>uencB
-20
39:?r* 141@ M9"ro8#o,* -ra,.79--*r .8*"-r?7 7a.k =,or7a)9B*; -o "#a,,*) (a,;9;-# B>
%"" <"" ?"" 8"" 5"" 6"" 2"" $"" " $"" 2"" 6"" 5"" 8"" ?"" <"" %""
"
2
5
?
%
$"
$2
$5
$?
$%
2"
22
25
2?
2%
6"
62
65
6?
6%
5"
52
55
5?
5%
8"
82
85
8?
8%
?"
?2
?5
??
?%
<"
<2
<5
<?
<%
%"
/re:uency offset from centre fre:' (.,-)
4
e
(
e
l
r
e
l
a
t
i
(
e

to

w
a
n
te
d
s
i
g
n
a
l

(
d
0
c
)

39:?r* 142@ M9"ro8#o,* r*"*9E*r 7a.k
ECC REPORT 96
Page ?8
&.&.2 Interference analysis
7nterference analysis between 2M$%"" and 3adio Microphones operating in ad&acent fre:uency bands was described in
E3C 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 2M$%"" and
3adio Microphones was that a guard band of <"" .,- ($<%8 * $<%8'< M,-) was recommended for a(oiding potential
interference problems between radio microphones and 2M$%""'
39:?r* 146@ Ra;9o M9"ro8#o,* +r*A?*,"6 (a,; 9. a;<a"*,- -o UMTS1800 UL
/or the compatibility between radio microphones and UMT$%"") there is a need to (erify through interference analysis
whether the recommended guard band of <"" .,- in E3C 3eport ?6 H$"I is sufficient for ensuring the good compatibility
between UMT$%"" and radio microphones operating in the ad&acent band'
UMT$%"" 0 recei(er narrow band bloc.ing is defined in 62PP T28'$"5 (3el*<)) wide area 0 recei(er narrow band
bloc.ing was defined as *5< d0m at 2'% M,- from its central carrier fre:uency' The AC of UMT 0 recei(er calculated
with the narrow band bloc.ing is 8$'6 d0 as described in ECC 3eport %2'
=ith a <"" .,- guard band) the nearest digital radio microphone carrier will be at $<%8'%8 M,-' The UMT$%"" carrier
would normally be at $<%2'8 M,-) thus the carrier separation between UMT carrier and the nearest digital radio
microphone is 2'8K"'<K"'$8Q6'68 M,-) which is more than 2'% M,-'
As UMT$%"" 0 narrow band bloc.ing was defined based on simulations that 2M$%"" M transmitting at its
ma+imum power of 6"d0m ($ =)) and by considering that radio microphones transmit at a ma+imum power of $6 d0m)
the interference from radio microphone to UMT$%"" 0 will be much less than the possible interference from 2M$%""
M' 7t can be considered that the interference from radio microphones to UMT 0 should not be a problem'
&.&.3 #onclusions
0ased on the interference analysis considerations between UMT$%"" and radio microphones) it can be considered that the
proposed guard band of <"" .,- in E3C 3eport ?6 and E3C#3EC <"*"6E is sufficient for protecting UMT$%"" 0
recei(ers under the condition that the radio microphone ma+imum transmitting power is limited to $6 d0m (2" m=) for
hand held microphones and $< d0m (8" m=) for body worn microphones) as recommended in E3C 3eport ?6 and
E3C#3EC <"*"6E'
1/2 Co78a-9(9)9-6 .-?;6 (*-**, UMTS1800 a,; 39F*; S*rE9"*.
Compatibility between UMT and /i+ed er(ices operating in co*fre:uency and ad&acent bands was studied and reported
in E3C 3eport ?8 H$$I and E3C 3eport ?5 H$2I' As described in these two E3C 3eports) the critical interference scenarios
are between UMT 0 and /i+ed er(ice stations) the interference between UMT UE and /i+ed er(ices was not
considered'
As indicated in table 5*$) the /i+ed er(ice fre:uency range is ad&acent to UMT$%"" U4) and the potential interference) if
any) will be between /i+ed er(ice and UMT$%"" 0' The interference analysis method used in the two E3C 3eports can
be used to deri(e the coordination distance) that is the space separation between UMT 0 and /i+ed er(ice stations as a
function of fre:uency separations between UMT base station and /i+ed ser(ice station) as an interference pre(ention
solution) as described in E3C 3eports ?5 and ?8'
1/6 Co,")?.9o,.
The compatibility between UMT$%"" and systems operating in ad&acent bands) including >ECT) METAT and 3adio
microphones) has been studied and described in this chapter' 0ased on the interference analysis) the following conclusions
can be made1
70
785 805
880
UMT$%"" U4
UMT$%"" >4
70
785 805
880
UMT$%"" U4
UMT$%"" >4
70
785 805
880
UMT$%"" U4
UMT$%"" >4
70
785 805
880
805
880
UMT$%"" U4
UMT$%"" >4
800
Micr18=1ne
70
785 805
880
UMT$%"" U4
UMT$%"" >4
70
785 805
880
UMT$%"" U4
UMT$%"" >4
70
785 805
880
UMT$%"" U4
UMT$%"" >4
70
785 805
880
805
880
UMT$%"" U4
UMT$%"" >4
800
Micr18=1ne
ECC REPORT 96
Page ??
$) 7nterference analysis shows that potential interference between UMT$%"" and >ECT does not appear to be a
problem) e+cept for the case where an UMT$%"" pico 0 is installed in indoor en(ironment close to >ECT PP
or 3/P' /or this deployment scenario) an additional filter could be re:uired for pre(enting the potential
interference from indoor pico*cellular UMT$%"" 0 to >ECT PP or 3/P when they are close to each other and
operating at the ad&acent fre:uencies of $%%" M,-' 7n practice) >ECT system has a >CA (>ynamic Channel
Allocation) mechanism which allows it to a(oid interference' 2M$%"" 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 <"" .,- from
the radio microphones fre:uency band the potential interference from radio microphones to UMT$%"" 0 should
not be a problem) if the radio microphone ma+imum transmit power is limited to $6 d0m (2" m=) for hand held
microphones and $< d0m (8" m=) for body worn microphones) as recommended in E3C 3eport ?6 and
E3C#3EC <"*"6E'
2 RE3ERENCES
H$I ECC 3eport %2) 3eport on the compatibility study for UMT being deployed within 2M!"" and 2M$%""
fre:uency bands) 2""?*"5
H2I ECC PT$("8)"<<) Proposal of UMT!""#$%"" system characteristics for sharing study with systems operating in
ad&acent bands) ource1 /rance
H6I ECC PT$("8)"<%) ystems operating in ad&acent bands of UMT!""#$%"" bands and their main characteristics)
ource1 /rance
H5I ECC PT$("?)"2%3$) =or.ing document towards a draft report on sharing study for UMT operating in !"" M,- and
$%"" M,- bands) ource1 UJ
H8I ECC PT$("?)"22) haring study for the co*e+istence between UMT!"" and 2M*3) ource1 /rance
H?I 62PP T58'""8 (3el*8)1 2M#E>2E 3adio Access Betwor.) 3adio Transmission and 3eception
H<I ECC 3eport 5$1 Ad&acent 0and Compatibility between 2M and C>MA*PAM3 at !$8 M,-) /eb' 2""5
H%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 %<" M,- PAM3 bands (C>MA PAM3) co(ering essential re:uirements
of article 6'2 of the 3\TTE >irecti(e
H!I ECC 3eport 81 Ad&acent 0and Compatibility between 2M and TET3A Mobile er(ices at !$8 M,-) Cune 2""2
H$"I 7TU*3 3ecommendation A$$8%*61 /easibility of fre:uency sharing in the $ ?<"*$ <$" M,- band between the
meteorological*satellite ser(ice (space*to*Earth) and
the mobile*satellite ser(ice (Earth*to*space)) 2""6
H$$I E3C 3eport ?81 Ad&acent 0and Compatibility 0etween UMT and Ather er(ices in the 2 2,- 0and) Bo(' $!!!
H$2I E3C 3eport ?51 /re:uency sharing between UMT and e+isting fi+ed ser(ices) May $!!!
H$6I E3C 3eport ?61 7ntroduction of 3adio Microphone Applications in the /re:uency 3ange $<%8*$%"" M,-) May
$!!%H$5I ET7 EB 6"" 522*$) ;$'2'2 (2"""*"%)) Electromagnetic compatibility and 3adio spectrum Matters
(E3M)N =ireless microphones in the 28 M,- to 6 2,- fre:uency rangeN Part $1 Technical characteristics and test
methods
H$8I E3C 3eport 6$1 Compatibility between >ECT and >C$%"") Cune $!!5
H$?I E3C 3eport $""1 Compatibility between certain 3adiocommunications ystems Aperating in Ad&acent 0ands1
E(aluation of >ECT # 2M$%"" Compatibility) /eb') 2"""
H$<I ECC PT$("?)"??) haring study between >ECT and UMT operating in the $%"" M,- band) April 2""?
H$%I ECC PT$("?)$25) Analytical study of the coe+istence between 2M*3 and UMT !"" based on the comparison of
UMT and 2M out*of*band emissions! Cune 2""?
H$!I ECC PT$("?)$65) 2M*3 and UMT !"" Compatibility) Cune 2""?
H2"I ECC PT$("?)$28) Ad&acent band compatibility at !?" M,- between UMT !"" and aeronautical systems (>ME))
Cune 2""?
H2$I E3C#3EC <"*"6E (Anne+ $")) 3adio microphones and Assisti(e 4istening >e(ices
H22I EC 7nteroperability >irecti(es (!?#5%#EC) 2""$#$?#EC and 2""5#8"#EC)
ECC REPORT 96
Page ?<
ANNE& 1 4 GSM900 AND UMTS900 ACLR PRO3ILES
This section presents the AC43 (Ad&acent Channel power 4ea.age 3atio) of 2M and UMT when they are deployed in
the 2M !"" band' The AC43 figures are calculated for a recei(er bandwidth of 2"" .,- in order to be able to estimate
the out*of*band emissions into an ad&acent 2M*3 recei(er channel'
$ase Station "#%R
The UMT!"" 0ase tation AC43 is deri(ed from the 62PP technical specification T 28'$"5 (<'6'" (2""?*"6)'
The 2M!"" 0ase tation AC43 is deri(ed from the 62PP technical specification T 58'""8 (<'8'" (2""?*"5)'
UMT and 2M 0 and UE out*of*band emissions are also gi(en in ECC 3eport %2 section 5'2'
/igure A$*$ below presents the AC43 figures in a 2"" .,- channel bandwidth' The UMT!"" AC43 is at the same le(el
as the 2M!"" AC43 when a 2"" .,- guard band is .ept between UMT channel and the 2M*3 channel (see circle in
red)'
2)? 2)% 6)2 6)" 6)5 6)? 6)% 5)" 5)2 5)5 5)?
39:?r* A141@ BS ACLR.
7t is a fundamental operational re:uirement for any communications system that the out*of*band emissions from the
transmitter do not desensitise a co*located recei(er' All macro base stations use recei(er di(ersity) and macro cell sites use
two antennas per sector' Therefore) the macro base station will include a duple+er) which will pro(ide additional filtering of
the transmitted signal' The duple+er must pro(ide sufficient attenuation of the transmitted signal in the recei(e band to
reduce the out*of*band emissions of the transmitter to well below the noise floor of the recei(er' /or) UMT!"") the
transmit and recei(e band are :uite close together) so the band*pass component of duple+ filter will need roll*off (ery
:uic.ly outside the transmit band'
T*r79,a) ACLR
The UMT!"" Terminal AC43 is deri(ed from the 62PP technical specification T 28'$"$ (<'6'" (2""?*"6)'
The 2M!"" Terminal AC43 is deri(ed from the 62PP technical specification T 58'""8 (<'8'" (2""?*"5)'
/igure A$*2 below presents the AC43 figures in a 2"" .,- channel bandwidth'
ECC REPORT 96
Page ?%
2)? 2)% 6)2 6)" 6)5 6)? 6)% 5)" 5)2 5)5 5)?
39:?r* A14$ 4 T*r79,a) ACLR.
ECC REPORT 96
Page ?!
ANNE& $ 4 INTER3ERENCE ANALYSIS CALCULATION WIT5 MCL APPROAC5 3OR T5E CO4
E&ISTENCE BETWEEN UMTS900 AND GSM4R
PART A/ T5E BASIC INTER3ERENCES CASES
The same 3ural area propagation model (,ata model) and simulation parameters as used in the Monte*Carlo simulations
for UMT !""*2M*3 compatibility) are used in the following calculations'
System parameters
7#+M) 0 antenna gain with cable loss included Q $8d0i
0 Transmit power K56d0m
UE antenna height ,msQ$'8 m
UE antenna gain " d0i (omni*directional pattern)
UE transmit power *88'%d0m in $M,-
GSM-R 0 antenna gain with cable loss included Q $8d0i
0 antenna height ,bsQ2" m
M antenna height ,msQ5'8 m (train mounted M)
Train mounted M antenna gain 2 d0i (omni*directional
pattern)
Ser6ices GSM-R $imit of co6era-e as defined in I# ,irene Specification is
-*8d9m at *&E probability in any 1""m len-th of trac4
Speech - SI:R tar-et 5downlin43< * d9
Ma0imum 2uta-e or #all +rop ratio< 1E
SI:R tar-et 5uplin43< / d9
+ata
SI:R tar-et 5downlin43< 12 d9
Ma0imum 2uta-e or #all +rop ratio< ".&E
'ropa-ation
Model
7#+M)
and GSM-
R
3ural area propagation model(,ata model)
4 5R3; /*.&& K2?'$? log fG$6'%2log(,b)KH55'!*?'88log(,b)IlogR
? %.185$o- f3
2
@18.33 lo- f -%".*% ? a5Am3
,b is 0 antenna height abo(e ground in m) f is fre:uency in
M,-) 3 is distance in .m) ,m is the M antenna height in m'
a (,m) Q H$'$9log(f) * "'<I9,m * H$'8?9log(f) * "'%I

!ransmitter(recei6e
r characteristics
7#+M) )s per spectrum mas4s defined in !S 2&.1"18 !S 2&.1"%
5applyin- the appropriate measurement 97 correction3
GSM-R )s defined in ,:3""*1"
Ta()* A$41@ S6.-*7 8ara7*-*r.
Ca.* 1/ O?-4o+4(a,; *79..9o,. UMTS 900 BS -o GSM4R MS
Using a fre:uency of !28M,- and the parameters in the table abo(e the propagation model is simplified to 4(3) Q
65'$+log3 K%% d0'
2M*3 ,ighest channel (speech)
UMT emission at carrier separation of 2'% M,- *$8d0m in 6".,- Q *< d0m in 2"".,-
Allowed 3ecei(ed ignal le(el (*!%*!) Q *$"<d0m
Transmit Antenna 2ain K$8d0
3ecei(e Antenna 2ain K2d0
/ading Margin *$"d0
3esulting allowed path loss $"<d0
4og3 Q($"<*%%)#65'$ 3 Q 6'? .m
ECC REPORT 96
Page <"
=ithout /ading Margin 3 Q <'$ .m
2M*3 ,ighest channel (data)
UMT emission at carrier separation of 2'% M,- *$8 d0m in 6".,- Q *< d0m in 2"".,-
Allowed 3ecei(ed ignal le(el (*!%*$2) Q *$$"d0m
/ading Margin *$"d0
3esulting allowed path loss $$"d0
4og3 Q($$"*%%)#65'$ 3 Q 5'5.m
=ithout fading Magin 3 Q %'< .m
2M*3 /ourth channel (speech)
UMT emission at carrier separation of 6'5 M,- *28d0m in 6".,- Q *$?'%d0m in 2"".,-
/ading Margin *$"d0
3esulting allowed path loss !<'2d0
4og3 Q(!<'2*%%)#65'$ 3 Q $'%.m
=ithout fading margin 3 Q 6'? .m
2M*3 /ourth channel (data)
UMT emission at carrier separation of 6'5 M,- *28d0m in 6".,- Q *$?'%d0m in 2"".,-
/ading Margin *$"d0
3esulting allowed path loss $""'2d0
4og3 Q($""'2*%%)#65'$ 3 Q 2'2.m
=ithout fading margin 3 Q 5'% .m
2M*3 3emaining channels (speech)
UMT emission at carrier separation higher than 6'5 M,- *2%d0m in 6".,- Q *$!'%d0m in 2"".,-
/ading Margin *$"d0
3esulting allowed path loss !5'2d0
4og3 Q(!5'2*%%)#65'$ 3 Q $'8.m
=ithout fading Margin 3 Q 6'" .m
2M*3 3emaining channels (data)
UMT emission at carrier separation higher than 6'5 M,- *2%d0m in 6".,- Q *$!'%d0m in 2"".,-
/ading Margin *$"d0
3esulting allowed path loss !<'2d0
4og3 Q(!<'2*%%)#65'$ 3 Q $'!.m
=ithout /ading Margin 3 Q 6'< .m
Ca.* 1(9./
2M*3 ,ighest channel (carrier separation Q2'% M,-)
Propagation model1 /ree space
Transmit Power Q *< d0m in 2"".,-
ECC REPORT 96
Page <$
Boise le(el *$2$ d0m#2"" .,-
Transmit Antenna 2ain K$% d0i
/eeder cable loss 6 d0
3ecei(e Antenna 2ain K"d0i
3ecei(e cable feeder loss 2
Boise /igure 8 d0
C#7 ! d0
ensiti(ity of 2M*3 (*$2$K2K8K!) Q *$"8 d0m
/ree space loss (distanceQ8"" m) %8'< d0
ensiti(ity decrease (eirp UMT G free space loss K C#7* sensiti(ity of 2M*3) 6?'6 d0
2M*3 ,ighest channel (UMT!"" central fre:uency Q!8<'5 M,-)
Propagation model1 /ree space
Transmit Power Q *26 d0m in 2"" .,-
Boise le(el *$2$ d0m#2"" .,-
Transmit Antenna 2ain K$% d0i
/eeder cable loss 6 d0
3ecei(e Antenna 2ain K"d0i
3ecei(e cable feeder loss 2 d0
Boise /igure 8 d0
C#7 ! d0
ensiti(ity of 2M*3 (*$2$K2K8K!) Q *$"8 d0m
/ree space loss (distanceQ8"" m) %8'< d0
ensiti(ity decrease (Eirp UMT G free space loss K C#7* sensiti(ity of 2M*3) 2"'6 d0
Ca.* $/ B)o"k9,: UMTS 900 BS -o GSM4R MS
1
Using a fre:uency of !28M,- and the parameters in the table abo(e the propagation model is simplified to 4(3) Q
65'$log3 K%% d0'
Transmit Power K56d0m in 6%5" .,- Q 6"'2 d0m in 2"".,-
Allowed 3ecei(ed ignal le(el *6%d0m
Transmit Antenna 2ain K$8d0i
3ecei(e Antenna 2ain K2d0i
/ading Margin *$"d0
3esulting allowed path loss <8'2d0
4og3 Q(<8'2*%%)#65'$ 3 Q 52"m
=ithout /ading Margin 3Q %6"m
=ith 4A model and without fading margin 3Q 5<"m
Ca.* 0/ B)o"k9,: UMTS 900 BS =9;* ar*a BS> -o GSM4R BTS
1
Using a fre:uency of !28M,- and the parameters in the Table abo(e the propagation model is simplified to 4(3) Q
65'$log3 K5%'6 d0'
Transmit Power K56d0m in 6%5".,- Q 6"'2d0m in 2"".,-
Allowed 3ecei(ed ignal le(el K%d0m
Transmit Antenna 2ain K$8d0i
3ecei(e Antenna 2ain K$8d0i
/ading Margin *$"d0
3esulting allowed path loss 52'2d0
4og3 Q(52'2*5%'6)#65'$ 3 Q ??8m
=ithout /ading Margin 3Q $'6.m
=ith 4A model and without fading margin 3Q $$ m
$
These calculations are based on the re:uirements for bloc.ing ta.ing into account an unmodulated signal'
ECC REPORT 96
Page <2
Ca.* 1/ B)o"k9,: UMTS 900 BS =7*;9?7 ar*a BS> -o GSM4R BTS
1

Using a fre:uency of !28M,- and setting the UMT Micro 0T antenna height to $"m the propagation model is
simplified to 4(3) Q 6%'5log3 K8<'6d0'
Transmit Power K6%d0m in 6%5".,- Q 28'2d0m in 2"".,-
Allowed 3ecei(ed ignal le(el K%d0m
Transmit Antenna 2ain K?d0
3ecei(e Antenna 2ain K$8d0i
/ading Margin *$"d0i
3esulting allowed path loss 2%'2d0
4og3 Q(2%'2*8<'6)#6%'5 3 Q $<8m
=ithout fading margin 3Q 62"m
=ith 4A model and without fading margin 3Q 2m
PART B/ ADDITIONAL E&AMPLES APPLYING MCL
7n the following) an MC4 analysis of the impact of the UMT!"" 0 interference on the 2M*3 M is presented' 7t
assumes a worst case scenario as shown in /igure A2*$ below' /or this analysis the relation of the wanted signal and the
signal of the interferer has to be considered'
39:?r* A$41 Wor.- "a.* ."*,ar9o@ UMTS900 BS 9,-*r+*r*,"* -o GSM4R MS
The worst case interference occurs when a 2M*3 M is located near the edge of its ser(ing cell) and a UMT!"" 0 is
located with closest distance to the railway trac. &ust at the 2M*3 cell edge area) and its sector antenna points right to this
area' The wideband noise emission of the UMT!"" 0 would then add to the thermal noise floor of the M 3F and the
2M*3 inter*cell interference'
7n the following) two calculations e+amples are gi(en for different 2M*3 cell ranges % .m and 8 .m'
EFa78)* 1@ GSM4R "*)) ra,:* H 8 k7 =a""or;9,: Ta()* 0/$>
7nter cell interference power1
Assumptions1 fre:uency re*use Q ?) 2*sector sites (see figure /igure )N 2M*3 0T antenna height Q 58 m) M
antenna height Q 5'8 m
Propagation loss at interferer distance 5% .m acc' to 7TU*3 3ec' P6<"*<1 $<! d0
(,ata model would result in $8" d0) but is not applicable at this long distance)
Co*channel interference at M1 ?" d0m (E73P) G $<! d0 Q *$$! d0m (isotropic)
Thermal noise floor of 2M*3 M at antenna1 *$2$ K2 (feeder) K < (noise figure) Q *$$2 d0mN
B K 7 at M antenna Q *$$$'2 d0m'
7'e' the 2M*3 networ. is effecti(ely thermal noise limited'
=anted signal at M at cell edge1
2M*3 0T TF power 58 d0m (6" =)
/eed line loss 6 d0
M
UMT
0
2M*3
0
2M*3 cell
3ailway
trac.
8 Y % .m
d
2M*3
0
/ $
/ 2 / 6 / 5
ECC REPORT 96
Page <6
TF Antenna gain $% d0i
E73P ?" d0m
Propagation loss $25 d0
(at cell edge # % .m) ,ata rural :uasi*open) ant' heights 58 m # 5'8 m)
hadow fading margin % d0 (` Q 8 d0) location prob' cell border !8O) cell area !%'!O)
=anted signal power 4%$ ;B7 (isotropic)
7nterference at M for a f Q 2'% M,- (worst case assumptions for UMT parameters) 1
UMT 0 interference *< d0m # 2"" .,-
/eed line loss 6 d0
TF Antenna gain $8 d0i
E73P 8 d0m
Type of 2M*3 transmission # re:uired C#7 (oice # C#7 Q ! d0 data # C#7 Q $2 d0
Acceptable 7nterference9 (isotropic) *%$ d0m *%5 d0m
3e:uired Propagation loss %? d0 %! d0
M9,/ ;9.-a,"* ; (free space#4A) 212 7 %$% 7
9) inter*cell interference *$$! d0m is negligible
7nterference at M for a f Q 2'% M,- (realistic assumptions for UMT parameters) 1
UMT 0 interference *$6 d0m# 2"" .,-
(8"O load and 6 d0 margin against 62PP limit)
/eed line loss 6 d0
E73P *$ d0m
3e:uired Propagation loss %" d0 %6 d0
M9,/ ;9.-a,"* ; (free space#4A) $28 7 061 7
7nterference at M for a f Q 6 M,- (realistic assumptions for UMT parameters) 1
UMT 0 interference *$? d0m# 2"" .,-
/eed line loss 6 d0
E73P *5 d0m
3e:uired Propagation loss << d0 <! d0
M9,/ ;9.-a,"* ; (free space#4A) 188 7 $0% 7
Cust for information below the case of
7nterference at M with realistic UMT 0 parameters # a f Q $2'% M,- ) lowest $" M,- segment of E2M band not used
by UMT)1
UMT 0 interference *2! d0m# 2"" .,- (8"O load) 6 d0 margin against 62PP limit)
/eed line loss 6 d0
E73P *$< d0m
3e:uired Propagation loss ?5 d0 ?< d0
M9,/ ;9.-a,"* ; (free space#4A) 11 7 28 7
=ith additional filtering this situation could be further impro(ed'
ECC REPORT 96
Page <5
EFa78)* $@ GSM4R "*)) ra,:* H 2 k7 =a""or;9,: Dra+- R*8/ 96 "#a8-*r 0/$/1/1/1>
7nter cell interference power1
Assumptions1 fre:uency re*use Q ?) 2*sector sites (see figure /igure )N 2M*3 0T antenna height Q 58 m) M
antenna height Q 5'8 m
Propagation loss at interferer distance Q 6" .m1 acc' to 7TU*3 3ec' P6<"*<1 $?% d0
Co*channel interference at M1 ?" d0m (E73P) G $?% d0 Q *$"% d0m
Thermal Boise floor of 2M*3 M at antenna1 *$2$ K2 (feeder) K < (noise figure) Q *$$2 d0mN
B K 7 at M antenna Q *$"?'8 d0m'
7'e' the 2M*3 networ. is interference limited'
=anted signal at M at cell edge1
2M*3 0T TF power 58 d0m (6" =)
/eed line loss 6 d0
TF Antenna gain $% d0i
E73P ?" d0m
Propagation loss $$< d0
(at cell edge # 8 .m) ,ata rural :uasi*open) ant' heights 58 m # 5'8 m)
hadow fading margin % d0 (` Q 8 d0) location prob' cell border !8O) cell area !%'!O)
=anted signal power 462 ;B7 (isotropic)
7nterference at M for a f Q 2'% M,- (worst case assumptions for UMT parameters) 1
UMT 0 interference *< d0m# 2"" .,-
/eed line loss 6 d0
E73P 8 d0m
Acceptable 7nterference9 (isotropic) *<5 d0m *<< d0m
3e:uired Propagation loss <! d0 %2 d0
M9,/ ;9.-a,"* ; (free space#4A) $00 7 0$2 7
9) inter*cell interference *$"% d0m is negligible
7nterference at M for a f Q 2'% M,- (realistic assumptions for UMT parameters) 1
UMT 0 interference *$6 d0m# 2"" .,-
/eed line loss 6 d0
E73P *$ d0m
3e:uired Propagation loss <6 d0 <? d0
M9,/ ;9.-a,"* ; (free space#4A) 112 7 160 7
7nterference at M for a f Q 6 M,- (realistic assumptions for UMT parameters) 1
UMT 0 interference *$? d0m# 2"" .,-
/eed line loss 6 d0
E73P *5 d0m
3e:uired Propagation loss <" d0 <6 d0
M9,/ ;9.-a,"* ; (free space#4A) 81 7 119 7
ECC REPORT 96
Page <8
Cust for information below is pro(ided the case of1
7nterference at M with realistic UMT 0 parameters # a f Q $2'% M,- ) lowest $" M,- segment of E2M band not used
by UMT)1
UMT 0 interference *2! d0m# 2"" .,-
/eed line loss 6 d0
E73P *$< d0m
3e:uired Propagation loss 8< d0 ?" d0
M9,/ ;9.-a,"* ; (free space#4A) 18 7 $6 7
Again with additional filtering this situation could be further impro(ed'
ECC REPORT 96
Page <?
ANNE& 0 4 ABBRE'IATIONS
AC43 Ad&acent Channel power 4ea.age 3atio
AC Ad&acent Channel electi(ity
A3B Aeronautical 3adio Ba(igation er(ice
C>/ Cumulati(e >istribution /unction
C>MA Code >i(ision Multiple Access
C#7 Carrier to 7nterference ratio
>ECT >igital Enhanced Cordless Telecommunications
>ME >istance Measurement E:uipment
EP/> E:ui(alent Power /lu+ >ensity
/3 /uture 3adio ystem
2M 2lobal ystem for Mobile communications
2M*3 3ailway ystem for Mobile communication
7T 7nstitute for Telecommunication ciences
7TM 7rregular Terrain Model (4ongley*3ice)
MC4 Minimum Coupling 4oss
M7> Multifunctional 7nformation >istribution ystem
BT7A Bational Telecommunications \ 7nformation Administration (U'' >epartment of Commerce)
PAM3 Public Access Mobile 3adio
PM3 Professional Mobile 3adio
P> Power pectral >ensity
3B 3adio Ba(igation atellite er(ice
#B ignal to Boise ratio
TET3A Terrestrial Trun.ed 3adio
UE User E:uipment
UMT Uni(ersal Mobile Telecommunications ystem
=C>MA =ideband C>MA
5*PJ 5*states Phase hift Jeying modulation

ECCRep 096

Enviado por

Dados do documento

Título original

Direitos autorais

Formatos disponíveis

Compartilhar este documento

Compartilhar ou incorporar documento

Opções de compartilhamento

Você considera este documento útil?

Este conteúdo é inapropriado?

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

ECCRep 096

Enviado por

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

ECC REPORT 96

COMPATIBILITY BETWEEN UMTS 900/1800 AND SYSTEMS

Você também pode gostar