Interference Analysis and Guidelines For Coexistence

ASIA-PACIFIC TELECOMMUNITY
The 3rd Meeting of the APT Wireless Forum 27 30 September 2006, Hanoi, Vietnam SR
Document AWF - 3/43 27 September 2006
INTERFERENCE ANALYSIS AND GUIDELINES FOR COEXISTENCE

SOURCE: QUALCOMM INCORPORATED
Provided by Ms. Julie Garcia Welch Chair, Spectrum Sub Working Group 1
Contact:
MS. JULIE GARCIA WELCH Qualcomm Inc. Hong Kong
Tel: +852 2537 5000 Fax: +852 2537 1188 Email: jgwelch@qualcomm.com
AWF-3/43
ESG
Engineering Services Group
Interference Analysis and Guidelines for Coexistence

November, 2005
QUALCOMM Incorporated 5775 Morehouse Drive San Diego, CA 92121-1714 U.S.A. Copyright 2006 QUALCOMM Incorporated. All rights reserved
Page 1 of 49
AWF-3/43
T A B L E
O F
C O N T E N T S
1 Introduction...............................................................................................1-1 2 Cellular Mobile Frequency Bands ..........................................................2-1 2.1 Introduction to Existing Cellular Spectrum 2-1 2.1.1 Generic Cellular Mobile Frequency Bands 2-1 2.1.2 Country or Region Specific Frequency Bands 2-3 2.2 IMT-2000 Spectrum 2-4 3 Related Concepts and Definitions..........................................................3-1 3.1 Isolation between Systems 3-1 3.2 Spurious Emissions and Harmonics 3-2 3.2.1 Transmitter Noise 3-2 3.2.2 Intermodulation Products 3-2 3.2.3 Transmitter Intermodulation 3-3 3.2.4 Receiver Intermodulation 3-3 3.3 Receiver Susceptibility 3-4 3.3.1 Rejection of Spurious Response 3-4 3.3.2 Receiver Front-end Desensitization 3-5 3.3.3 Near Far Problem on Interference 3-5 4 CDMA CDMA Interference ....................................................................4-1 4.1 Effect on Base Station Uplink 4-1 4.2 Adjacent Channel Power to In-band Power Ratio 4-2 4.3 Other Frequency Interference Sources 4-4 4.3.1 Undesired Cellular Channel Acquisition 4-4 4.4 Recommendations 4-4 5 CDMA - DECT Interference ......................................................................5-1 5.1 Interference Analysis 5-1 5.2 Recommendations 5-2 6 CDMA - GSM Interference........................................................................6-1 6.1 CDMA Transmit Out-of-Band Emissions 6-4 6.2 CDMA Transmit Inter-modulation 6-7 6.3 GSM Receiver Desensitization 6-8 6.4 GSM Receiver Inter-modulation 6-9 6.5 Recommendations 6-10 7 CDMA - WCDMA Interference..................................................................7-1 7.1 CDMA2000 BTS to WCDMA NodeB Interference 7-2 7.2 UMTS UE to PCS MS Interference 7-4 7.3 Recommendations 7-5 8 CDMA - Trunked Radio Interference ......................................................8-1 8.1 Recommendations 8-1 9 Effect of External Interference to CDMA................................................9-1 9.1 Effect on Reverse Link Coverage 9-1 9.2 Effect on Reverse Link Loading 9-2 9.3 Recommendations 9-3 10 Antenna Isolation Guidelines................................................................10-1 10.1 Tests and Measurements 10-1 10.2 Recommendations 10-2 11 References ..............................................................................................11-1
ii 80-W0469-1 Rev B
QUALCOMM Proprietary
Page 2 of 49
AWF-3/43
1 Introduction
Coexistence of mobile wireless systems in different frequency bands using different technologies is becoming increasingly common. In a multi-operator environment and in a region or a country where multiple network operators are competing to provide wireless services, positioning a cell site without interference is often a challenge faced by operators. It is important to understand the risk of interference between systems when planning in such an environment.
In instances where multiple mobile technologies (i.e. AMPS, TDMA, GSM, CDMA and WCDMA) operate in a particular country in a variety of frequency bands (i.e. 450, 800, 900, 1700, 1800, 1900 and 2100 MHz), the possibility of increased interference is inevitable. This effect is compounded in countries where there is no location or zoning regulation and when there are multiple operators for each of the allocated frequency bands. In some countries, identical spectrum allocations have been licensed to different operators in adjoining geographic service areas. Indeed it is a major challenge to combat interference when the two networks operate in the same frequency band in adjacent service areas with non-collocated sites. In countries where zoning restrictions are commonplace, especially in urban and metro regions, an operator is further constrained as limitations are also placed on the location of cell sites along with the associated antenna towers. In cases where the same frequency band is utilized by multiple operators, interference can be minimized while still complying with zoning requirements, by sharing infrastructure towers, antennae etc. However, another challenge is to design a tower that can successfully accommodate several antennas while keeping the overall interference to a minimum. The hoisting of antennas at different heights (vertical separation) for different frequency bands in different morphologies is another important consideration that can help minimize interference.
The objective of this white paper is to define considerations and guidelines for guard band and antenna isolation requirements and outline options to control the level of interference within acceptable limits while planning and deploying mobile wireless networks. This paper is also intended to provide some recommendations for tower sharing with multiple technologies citing minimum required spatial (horizontal and vertical) isolation between various antennas operating at different frequencies using different technologies. Most of these guidelines are based on published results of simulations or measurements. These references can be found at the end of this document.
80-W0469-1 Rev B
Page 3 of 49 1-1
AWF-3/43
Page 4 of 49
AWF-3/43
Cellular Mobile Frequency Bands
This section presents the details of various frequency band allocations for mobile communications in different regions of the world. It is interesting to note that some of the frequency bands tend to be technology specific, while others are technology agnostic. These different approaches are the result of policies followed at a national or regional level. Variations in spectrum allocations around the world coupled with the use of multiple technologies presents certain challenges such as the need for multi-mode, multi-band and multi-technology handsets and also the need to facilitate intersystem and international roaming requirements. But, this paper doesnt address these challenges.
2.1 Introduction to Existing Cellular Spectrum

Although the ITU has earmarked approximately 700 MHz of spectrum for mobile communications [i], most countries have allocated only about 200 to 300 MHz of spectrum thus far. The ever increasing penetration of cellular mobile devices along with innovative and emerging data applications has raised the demand for more spectrum to be available for such services. This has resulted in a constant search for new spectrum bands for mobile communications by regulatory bodies.
2.1.1
Generic Cellular Mobile Frequency Bands
Though current spectrum allocations for mobile communications differ from country to country, there exist clear recommendations from international standardization bodies such as the International Telecommunication Union (ITU) on the usage of spectrum. Other important agencies which play a role in how spectrum is utilized in each country include entities like the Telecommunications Industry Association (TIA), the European Conference on Postal and Telecommunication Administrations (CEPT) along with policy-making entities and independent regulators that decide on frequency allocations, band plans and assignments.
Most countries in North and South America follow American National Standards Institute (ANSI) recommendations and have also taking into account FCC decisions, which include the adoption of the 800 MHz cellular and the PCS frequency allocations. In Europe, CEPT ECC recommendations for spectrum allocations have been implemented at a regional level with 900 and 1800 MHz allocated cellular service. Several Asian countries, following Europes lead, allocated spectrum in the 900 and 1800 MHz bands. Some of the developing and most populous Asian countries such as China, India, Indonesia, and Vietnam have selected parts of both the American and the European
Page 5 of 49 2-1
80-W0469-1 Rev B
Interference Analysis and Guidelines for Coexistence AWF-3/43
November 2005
spectrum allocations in order to encourage competition and to ensure that various technologies are available for specific applications or needs.
In an effort to harmonize the frequency allocations for 3G technologies, the ITU identified spectrum for IMT-2000 technologies and established Recommendation M.1036-2 that specifies band identified for 3G services. This identified band also includes the major spectrum allocations already utilized for first and second generation services worldwide. Additional details on IMT-2000 spectrum are provided in Section 2.2. Figure 1 and Table 1 below depict the commonly used mobile communication bands worldwide.
824 800 MHz Cellular Band (25 + 25 MHz Spectrum) 45 MHz Separation 900 MHz GSM cellular Band (25 + 25 MHz Spectrum) 890 915 935 960 849 869 894
45 MHz Separation 1800 MHz DCS Band (75 + 75 MHz Spectrum) 1710 1785 1805 1880
95 MHz Separation 1850 1900 MHz PCS Band (60 + 60 MHz Spectrum) 80 MHz Separation 1920 2100 MHz IMT-2000 Band (60 + 60 MHz Spectrum) 190 MHz Separation 1980 2110 2170 1910 1930 1990
Figure 1: Spectrum Bands in use for Mobile Wireless Communications Frequency Band 800 MHz 900 MHz 1.8 GHz 1.9 GHz 2.1 GHz Specific Band Pairing 824-849 / 869-894 MHz 890-915 / 935-960 MHz 1710-1785 / 1805-1880 MHz 1850-1910 / 1930-1990 MHz 1920-1980 / 2110-2170 MHz Common Names 800 MHz or Cellular band 900 MHz or GSM900 DCS band or DCS 1.8 GHz PCS band or PCS 1.9 GHz UMTS in IMT-2000 Band
Table 1: Spectrum Bands in use for Mobile Wireless Communications
A majority of the mobile systems today operate in the 800 and 900 MHz frequency bands. The use of other bands at 1800/1900/2100 MHz continues to grow. The search for new radio spectrum continues as operators seek to enhance their cellular system capacity to meet voice requirements as well as the increasing demand for broadband access and multi-media applications. These market demands as well as governments interest to take advantage of advanced wireless systems to meet universal service obligations are placing pressure on operators, regulators and institutions
Page 6 Rev B 80-W0230-1of 49
2-2
November 2005
to search for new spectrum. Some governments are considering adopting portions of band plans that have been implemented in other markets. The study of utilizing a portion of band is being considered as there is an overlap that exists between a. 800 & 900 MHz bands b. DCS 1800 & PCS 1900 MHz bands and c. PCS 1900 & IMT 2100 MHz bands.
2.1.2
Country or Region Specific Frequency Bands
Japan and Korea have elected to allocate certain frequency bands that are unique and not deployed anywhere else in the world. There are also some regional band allocations in Europe and other parts of the world in the 450 MHz spectrum often referred to in past as the NMT450 band. Figure 2 shows details of such country or region specific frequency bands.
452.5 457.475 462.5 467.475
10 MHz Separation 832 to 834, 838 to 846, 860 870 887 to 889, 893 to 901, 915
450 MHz NMT A Band (4.975 + 4.975 MHz Spectrum) 925
55 MHz Separation Note: In the Japanese Spectrum allocations the BTS Tx frequency is lower than the MS Tx Frequency 1750 1780 1840
800 / 900 MHz Japanese Cellular Band (20 + 20 MHz Spectrum) 1870
90 MHz Separation
1700 MHz Korean PCS Band (30 + 30 MHz Spectrum) 1477 1489 1501 1513 Japanese PDC Band (24 + 24 MHz Spectrum)
1429
1441
1453
1465
48 MHz Separation
Figure 2: Country or Region Specific Mobile Communication Bands
As a special note, the Base Station transmit and Mobile Station transmit frequencies at 800 MHz band in Japan are currently reversed when compared to the rest of the world although this is being changed. It is also worth noting that the NMT450 band is being increasingly utilized for the deployment of CDMA2000 technology (generally called CDMA450). The 450 MHz band is recognized as an ideal band for providing rural communications access due to its propagation and coverage advantages. More over, with the increase of mobile wireless networks in Africa, Asia and Latin America (apart from Russia and other Central and Eastern European Countries), the 450 MHz band is now becoming another universal band.
80-W0469-1Rev B
Page 7 of 49 2-3
November 2005
2.2 IMT-2000 Spectrum

International Mobile Telecommunications - 2000 (IMT-2000) is the global standard for third generation (3G) wireless communications, defined by a set of interdependent ITU Recommendations [ii]. IMT-2000 provides a framework for worldwide wireless access by linking the diverse systems of terrestrial and/or satellite based networks and takes advantage of the synergies between digital mobile telecommunications technologies and systems for fixed and mobile wireless access systems. In 1992 and 2000, the ITUs World Radiocommunication Conferences (WARC-92 and WRC-2000) identified several frequency bands that Administrations should consider when wishing to implement IMT-2000 systems in 806-960 MHz, 1710-2025 MHz, 2110-2200 MHz and 2500-2690 MHz bands. Note that this identification is not an allocation to a particular technology or set of technologies, nor an allocation to a new service. The identification is solely a recommendation to Administrations to consider using the frequencies for IMT-2000. In addition, none of the bands listed above enjoys a priority over any of the others in the Radio Regulations). There is no core, candidate or extension band associated with frequencies identified for IMT-2000. In addition, the identification of these bands does not preclude their use for other services to which the bands are allocated. Moreover, IMT-2000 may be deployed in any band identified to the mobile service on a primary basis. This means that Administrations are free to use any of these frequency bands, or any other bands allocated to the mobile service, for IMT-2000 services and systems. Indeed, some administrations have allowed IMT-2000 systems, such as CDMA2000, to be deployed in lower UHF land mobile bands, e.g. at 450 MHz. The ITU has recommended Administrations in-band migration to IMT-2000.
2-4
Page 8 Rev B 80-W0230-1of 49
AWF-3/43
Related Concepts and Definitions
Some concepts and definitions related to interference in cellular mobile systems are defined below. It is also necessary to mention the concepts associated with the transmitter emission model and the receiver response model. In this section, guidelines for the isolation requirement between the transmitter and the receiver (both wanted and unwanted) and methods to achieve the required isolation are also covered.
3.1 Isolation between Systems

Isolation between systems is defined as the attenuation between the transmitter reference point in the interfering system (BTS or MS) and the receiver reference point (MS or BTS). As shown in Figure 3, it is possible that one BTS could potentially disturb another BTS. The isolation between the reference points in this case is given below: Available Isolation = Feeder loss 1- Antenna gain 1 + Propagation loss - Antenna gain 2 + Feeder loss + Extra attenuation provided by special filters
Antenna gain 1 Feeder loss 1 Propagation loss
Antenna gain 2 Feeder loss 2
Extra filter
Available Isolation between the two reference points
Transmitter of the Aggressor Reference Points
Receiver of the Victim
Figure 3: Isolation Requirement between Transmitter and Receiver For distances more than 10 m, the propagation loss can be approximated to a free space propagation model based on the environment. For short antenna separations, the value of the Isolation i.e., (propagation loss the combined antenna gains 1 & 2) can be approximated by
80-W0469-1 Rev B
Page 9 of 49 3-1
November 2005
measuring coupling loss of the typical antennas. For increased isolation, special band pass filters are required.
Using additional filters in transmit as well as receive paths, one could mitigate or at least reduce the effect of the interference that arises due to the co-existence of various cellular mobile systems. The desired filter performance requirement may vary greatly depending on the frequency of operation, operational bandwidth, roll-off characteristics, attenuation requirement, and cost.
3.2 Spurious Emissions and Harmonics

Spurious emissions usually refer to all unwanted emissions from a transmitter. The emissions can include intermodulation (IM) products caused by different frequencies used internally in the Base Station transmitter (as explained below), the intermodulation caused by external carrier frequencies, the harmonics (peaks at double the carrier frequency) and the noise. All of these may cause cochannel and/or adjacent channel type interference to a nearby victim receiver.
3.2.1
Transmitter Noise
Spurious emissions are occasional peaks outside the carrier frequency, whereas the transmitter noise is the lowest level of continuous wideband emission. Transmitter (TX) noise cannot be minimized with radio frequency (RF) planning alone, as it is related to the Noise Figure (NF) of the transmit chain. This wideband RF noise is also referred to as sideband noise. Most of this noise is generated in the exciter section and amplified in following stages and through the transmitter output stages. Some transmitters are worse than others in generating this wideband noise.
3.2.2
Intermodulation Products
Intermodulation (IM) products are created both in transmit or receive paths, when two or more frequencies are mixed and amplified in a non-linear device. IM products of order n are the sums and differences in n terms of the original frequencies. Usually, the higher the order of the IM product, the lower is its strength. Also, if one of the terms of the product is weaker than the rest, then the resultant IM product power would also decrease considerably. The non ideal or non linear characteristics of the devices whether transmit or receive lead to these undesired frequencies which may get transmitted if generated in the transmitter or generated in the receiver, will result in a cochannel type of interference at the victim receiver.
3-2
Page 10 Rev B 80-W0230-1of 49
November 2005
5th order Intermod (IM5)
3rd order Intermod (IM3)
3rd order Intermod (IM3)
5th order Intermod (IM5)
3*f1-2*f2
2*f1-f2
f1
f2
2*f2-f1
3*f2-2*f1
Figure 4: 3rd and 5th order IM Products of two Frequencies f1 and f2
3.2.3
Transmitter Intermodulation
As mentioned in Section 3.2.2, the transmitter (Tx) IM products are created at the transmitting Base Station through the mixing of carriers in the same power amplifier, combiner, duplex filter, connectors or the antenna. Transmitter IM may lead to co-channel interference, which requires high isolation between systems or extra filters to be added to the interfering system. Adding filters becomes difficult if the interfering system belongs to a competing or an existing mobile wireless operator.
3.2.4
Receiver Intermodulation
Two or more signals may cause intermodulation in the receivers with some non-linearities. These intermodulation signals cause interference if they fall within the receivers bandwidth as they are detected and amplified in the same way as the desired signal. Hence, intermodulation predictions are necessary in order to identify pairs of transmitters within the electromagnetic environment that may degrade the performance of the receiver due to intermodulation effects. Receiver (Rx) IM is created in the receiver amplifiers. The main difference between Tx IM and Rx IM with regard to coexistence is that the magnitude of co-channel interference from Tx IM is more predictable than interference from Rx IM. The strength of Rx IM3 and IM5 increases 3 and 5 times as fast (in dB) as the received carriers creating this IM. Since the strengths of Rx IM products increase rapidly with the power of the strong received (unwanted) carriers, Rx IM is often associated with an Rx IM rejection level. Carriers above the IM rejection level may cause severe interference while carriers below the level are acceptable or harmless. Both IM3 and IM5 should be considered as receiver IM interference. Usually the IM performance of a receiver is mentioned in terms of intermodulation rejection ratio and is related to the 3rd Intermod intercept point (IIP3) of the receiver front end. For example the Pin IM (intermodulation power in dBm) equals 3*Pi 2*IIP3 where Pi is the equal power in the two interfering signals in dBm and IIP3 is the 3rd order Intermod intercept point of the receiver in dBm. An extra filter before the affected/ interfered receiver stage can mitigate the problem.
Page 11 of 49 3-3
80-W0469-1Rev B
November 2005
3.3 Receiver Susceptibility

Usually receivers are designed to respond to certain types of electromagnetic signals within a predetermined frequency band. However, receivers also respond to undesired signals having various modulation and frequency characteristics. Potentially the interfering signals fall into one of the three following basic categories: Co-Channel Interference (CCI): This refers to emissions having frequencies that exist within the narrowest pass band of the receiver. Adjacent Channel Interference (ACI): This refers to unwanted signals having frequency components that exist within or near the receiver pass band. Generally, Multi-operator Interference, often called adjacent channel interference is the interference between two CDMA operators whose frequency carrier assignments are adjacent, especially in situations where their cell towers are not collocated. Out-of-band Interference (OBI): This refers to signals having frequency components which are outside of the receiver pass band. When this interference exceeds the noise floor of the victim receiver it degrades the noise figure of the victim receiver. To counter this effect either the out of band signal components need to be reduced (by adding filters to the aggressor transmitter) or the wanted signal level at the victim receiver be increased. The frequency selectivity of a receiver plays an important role in suppressing adjacent channel interference. The radio frequency (RF) selectivity characteristic defines a frequency range in which interference may generally appear. On the other hand, the intermediate frequency (IF) selectivity is indicative of the ability of a receiver to discriminate against adjacent channel interference. Combined with the transmitter spectrum mask, the RF and IF selectivities dictate the frequency separation considerations.
3.3.1
Rejection of Spurious Response
In general, receivers are susceptible to large out-of-band signals that generate spurious response in the receiver. A spurious response may be generated if the frequency of an interfering signal is such that the signal or one of its harmonics can mix with a local oscillator or one of its harmonics to produce an IF in the receiver IF pass band. The most critical frequency in this respect is the image frequency of the receiver. In order to have good spurious response rejection, the susceptibility threshold of the image frequency should be considered. However, this calls for detailed image frequency/spurious response characteristics of the receiver if interference problems due to image frequency are detected.
3-4
Page 12 Rev B 80-W0230-1of 49
November 2005
3.3.2
Receiver Front-end Desensitization
A strong interference signal inside the RF bandwidth of a receiver may cause interference even if the emission is outside the pass band of the IF amplifiers resulting in a reduction of gain for the desired signal due to nonlinearities in the receiver front-end. This effect leads to reduced Signal-toNoise ratio (S/N) of the receiver, if a certain saturation reference power level is exceeded. This phenomenon is usually called blocking or desensitization. For this purpose, the interference power level at the front end of the receiver needs to be measured over the entire RF bandwidth of the receiver. In other words, the receiver blocking or desensitization level is the maximum level of a non co-channel or adjacent channel interference that can be received as a weak input signal (about 3 dB above the sensitivity level) without degrading the receiver performance.
3.3.3
Near Far Problem on Interference
All transmitters have noise, spurious emissions and TX IM products outside the desired operating frequency assignment. These emissions result in noise and may cause interference to a nearby receiver that is tuned to a weak signal from a transmitter (BTS or MS) which is far away. Closer the interfering carrier (in frequency) to the desired frequency carrier, more sensitive the receiver is to the interference. The interference is a mix of the adjacent channel interference due to insufficient attenuation in the receiver band pass filter and the co-channel interference from the wideband noise of the closer interfering transmitter.
80-W0469-1Rev B
Page 13 of 49 3-5
AWF-3/43
Page 14 of 49
AWF-3/43
CDMA CDMA Interference
One type of interference that can be seen in a multi-operator scenario especially in the 800 MHz band is CDMA-CDMA interference. In general, interference sources in CDMA impact the coverage, capacity as well as the Quality of Service (QoS). In a multi operator scenario, the following network details should be carefully reviewed: Frequency separation between operators own Frequency Assignment (FA) and the FA of other CDMA service operators Co-location or site-to-site distance Zoning laws, if applicable Base Station and Terminal RF specifications of the operators in the given frequency range Various external interferences on frequency assignments, their sources, spacing or guard bands, Base Station site locations, antenna specifications and general network design
The following sections explain how to forecast or visualize the intensity of interference and also deal with various recommendations on how to mitigate interference.
4.1 Effect on Base Station Uplink

As stated above, the multi-operator interference is often called Adjacent Channel Interference and when looking at CDMA to CDMA interference, is the interference between two CDMA operators, especially in situations where their cell towers are not collocated. Figure 5 shows the Adjacent Channel Interference effect of Operator # 2s mobile terminal on Operator #1s Base Station when the Operator #2s mobile terminal is situated in close proximity to Operator #1s Base Station. Operator #2s mobile terminal, in Operator #1s Base Station area, is using maximum power on the uplink because its own home Base Station is far away. What this means to Operator #1s Base Station uplink is that there is a high amount of interference due to Operator #2s mobile terminal. Therefore, this affects Operator #1s uplink performance, in terms of capacity degradation due to higher interference levels.
80-W0469-1 Rev B
Page 15 of 49 4-1
November 2005
Adjacent Channel Interference
Near Interferer
Far Signal
BTS of Operator 2
Mobile of Operator 2 BTS of Operator 1

Figure 5: Base Station Interference from Mobile Terminals
Although Operator #2s mobile meets IS-98D minimum performance specifications on the adjacent carrier frequency, its transmission may still affect a number of Base Stations in that area based on its power, the direction of Base Stations receive antenna and the location of the mobiles in the network. In the worst case, this would mean increased noise on the uplink, resulting in either loss in coverage or a loss in capacity or both. This type of interference is termed as interference due to near-far effect.
For non-collocated Base Stations, the difference in path loss (PL = PLfar PLnear) is one of the main effects that determine the degree of near-far interference. Thus, it is important to properly estimate the path loss values for the near and far conditions. Note that the path loss is really an effective path loss which represents theoretical RF propagation loss and fade margin (shadowing effects). Therefore, Received Signal Level [dBm] = Transmitted Signal Level [dBm] PL [dB]. The effective path loss value for the far condition can be estimated via link budget and mobile transmit power level. Therefore, PLfar = Mobile Transmit Power Level Base Station Receiver Sensitivity. The effective path loss value for the near field condition can be estimated by looking at the RF propagation in BTS near field region.
4.2 Adjacent Channel Power to In-band Power Ratio

The amount of adjacent channel interference is a function of the guard band between the two CDMA channels and the filter responses of Base Stations and mobiles. Guard band (as different from operating carrier to carrier center frequency) is the frequency separation between two CDMA channels in excess of the nominal 1.23MHz separation for the 800 MHz Cellular band and the 1.25MHz separation for the PCS 1900 MHz band. Adjacent channel interference is also a function
4-2
Page 16 Rev B 80-W0230-1of 49
November 2005
of the relative geographical separation between the cell sites in the network carrying the adjacent channels.
The effective path loss difference between the geographical locations of the base stations carrying adjacent channels ranges from a minimum of 65 dB in a best-case nearby situation to 150 dB at the maximum border cell distance of about 3.5 Km (under LOS conditions). For best results, it has been observed that an inter operator carrier to carrier spacing of about 60 channels (1.8 MHz) in the case of non-collocated base stations may be required to significantly reduce the near-far problem in urban environments where the site to site distance of the different operators base stations would normally be about 300 meters. Reduced carrier-to-carrier spacing, less than 1.8 MHz but still greater than 1.23 MHz, is possible with some impact on capacity and coverage. The worst case scenario that should be avoided is when the adjacent operators base stations are located on the edge of the coverage area of the competing operator.
At center-to-center spacing of 1.5 MHz (50 AMPS channels with 9 channels of guard band between operators), the isolation between interferer and source is about 45 dB. When reduced to 1.41 MHz (i.e., 47 AMPS channels with 6 channels of guard band between operators), the available isolation is reduced to 40 dB. The typical effect of adjacent channel to in-band power ratio under 0 dB SINR conditions for different values of channel spacing is typically shown in figure 6 below.
Ratio of Adjacent channel to In-band power (dB) at 0 dB SINR 45
40
35
30
25
20
15 1.25
1.3
1.35
1.4
1.45
1.5
Channel Spacing (MHz)
Figure 6: Adjacent channel to in-band power ratio for varying channel spacing
80-W0469-1Rev B
Page 17 of 49 4-3
November 2005
4.3 Other Frequency Interference Sources

Base station sensitivity degradation caused by the third order Intermodulation (IM) products of two CDMA carriers especially in the band from 847 MHz to 851MHz, is a typical case of other frequency interference problems. An odd term IM has a worse effect than an even term because the even terms are generally out of band. In certain cases, for example with two frequency components at f1=851MHz and f2=853MHz, the resulting third order IM product 2*851 - 853 = 849 MHz would fall within the band and this IM product could cause in-band operating Base Station Rx sensitivity degradation. Using highly linear RF components by vendors could reduce IM and thereby not cause any Base Station performance degradation. This kind of degradation to the Base Station Rx sensitivity (due to IM) could potentially cause an outage of service, increase the percentage of call blocking and in the worst case, could lead to excessive call drops.
4.3.1
Undesired Cellular Channel Acquisition
Undesired channel acquisition problems [iv] have been reported in Korea and India using standard spacing of 41 channels (1.23 MHz) on adjacent carriers in 800 MHz band with non collocated sites. The adjacent carrier (1.23 MHz away) can produce an aliased signal with 1.2 kHz offset due to the difference in the carrier RF bandwidth and the actual digital bandwidth of 1.2288 MHz (the difference between the RF and digital bandwidths is 1.2 kHz). This aliased signal can get demodulated in the mobile, thereby creating the possibility of acquiring an undesired carrier. This can occur if the relative strength of the undesired carrier is higher when compared to the desired carrier (i.e. ~ 20 dB higher). This problem might exist in the case of non-collocated sites and with the same operator. Thus it may be preferable in non-collocated situations to have 42 channels spacing instead of 41 channels spacing between adjacent frequency assignments.
4.4 Recommendations
The situation of non-collocated Base Stations from competing CDMA operators may become prevalent in some markets because regulation does not insist on collocation of sites for competing CDMA operators. In this situation, insufficient guard band between different frequency assignments (FA) of competing CDMA operators would degrade performance of the CDMA system. This was demonstrated in over-the-air (OTA) testing of a CDMA receiver during a series of mobile drive tests in the 800 MHz cellular band in a rural part of San Diego County [iii]. In these tests, some conclusions were drawn on the desensitization of the mobile in the downlink and the Base Station in the uplink, in the presence of an adjacent CDMA carrier of 1.23 MHz bandwidth.
Presently, inter-carrier (operator) adjacent channel spacing of 60 channels (center-to-center) or 1.8 MHz (or 19 AMPS channels of guard band separation) are being followed where the cell sites of the
Page 18 Rev B 80-W0230-1of 49
4-4
November 2005
competing operators are not collocated. Depending on the spectrum availability and the efficiency of filtering with the infrastructure, guard band provisions can vary from 9 AMPS channels to 19 AMPS channels between the spectrum allocations of two CDMA carriers operating in the 800 MHz band in the same geographical area. As a summary: A Carrier spacing of 1.8 MHz between operators is recommended Reduced carrier spacing can possibly result in interference, but should not begin significantly until about 1.5 MHz Under any circumstances, 1.23 MHz carrier spacing between operators (with non-collocated sites) is not at all permissible
80-W0469-1Rev B
Page 19 of 49 4-5
AWF-3/43
Page 20 of 49
AWF-3/43
CDMA - DECT Interference
A number of CDMA networks are deployed in the Americas and in the Asia Pacific region along with Digital Enhanced Cordless Telephone (DECT) systems. With multiple operators overlapping their service areas using adjacent frequency assignments, interference among systems becomes a concern unless proper guidelines are implemented and followed. The issue is more crucial in countries where multiple technologies coexist in overlapping frequency band allocations and where allocations are not uniform over the entire coverage area of a country. In those cases, it is necessary to explore options that will limit interference and allow for the use of multiple technologies to the best judgment of the licensees.
The use of adjacent frequency bands (having no guard band or in the worst case, having some common over-lapping spectrum) and the use of different technologies by two operators in adjacent areas may result in co-band interference. As an example, the DECT TDD system (1880-1900 MHz/1900-1920 MHz/1910-1930 MHz) has an overlapping spectral allocation with the PCS 1900 MHz (1850-1910 MHz/ 1930-1990 MHz) band. In efforts to quantify the interference among CDMA systems operating in the PCS 1900 MHz band and DECT systems, various studies have been conducted by the Inter-American Commission on Telecommunications (CITEL) part of the Organization of American States analyzing scenarios where both frequency bands have been licensed [v to viii]. The interference potential of DECT to DCS1800 bands could also be significant based on overlapping areas and guard bands used.
5.1 Interference Analysis

In the analysis carried out by CITEL [v & vi], it is assumed that CDMA (in PCS1900) and DECT Fixed Wireless Access (FWA) systems are deployed in an overlapping geographical area. CDMA is assigned to block C (1895-1910/1975-1990 MHz) (Block C has the lowest potential of interference for other allocations such as DCS1800 and UMTS/IMT-2000) in Frequency Division Duplex (FDD) mode, while DECT is operating in either a shared band or an adjacent band (1880-1900 MHz or 1910-1930 MHz) in Time Division Duplex (TDD) mode. The parameters reflecting various DECT FWA applications are taken into account in the analysis [vii & viii]. The radio propagation model used for computing the propagation loss is based on the two-slope model adopted by the CITEL PCC-III Interference Experts Group [v].
80-W0469-1 Rev B
Page 21 of 49 5-1
November 2005
5.2 Recommendations
Based on the simulation results from various studies referred to here, it may be concluded that the system performance of the PCS CDMA system as well as the DECT systems are greatly impaired, even though they are operating in adjacent frequency bands. Operating in a co-band condition (with a 10 MHz overlap) is the worst case and is nearly unworkable. In both cases, a guard band or wide geographical separation as per the results of the studies referenced would be necessary for a system to operate under interference free conditions.
Adjacent band operation is feasible with reasonable guard bands, but this depends on the situation. The worst case scenario seems to be that of a CDMA base station degrading the noise figure of a DECT Base Station or fixed DECT set. In this scenario, 1dB degradation separation distance could be about 3.5 kilometers based on the propagation model assumed. However, in many other cases this distance could be as small as 100 meters. The variation in this distance depends primarily on antenna locations, directions and environments.
To resolve interference problems between CDMA and DECT systems, there are a few options available such as: Shifting DECT operating bands from co-channel to adjacent band operation. Facilitating co-band operation of DECT and CDMA in an area by allocating 1880-1900 MHz for DECT operations and the PCS blocks F and C (1890-1910/1970-1990 MHz) for CDMA operations, with 1890 to 1900 MHz as overlap band. In other words as long as DECT is not used in a particular area, CDMA operators could use the PCS band. And if for some reason CDMA still caused interference with the existing DECT links then onus would fall on the operator who entered into the market at a later date. Utilizing Dynamic Channel Selection (DCS) in DECT units. Prior studies concluded that DECT units can use DCS to avoid CDMA interference. Studies showed that the use of DCS has resulted in the two systems operating essentially with no degradation even when they shared a portion of the same spectrum.
It is recommended to verify the interference levels and distances outlined in the references mentioned at the end of this document under actual field conditions as these are models based on many assumptions.
5-2
Page 22 Rev B 80-W0230-1of 49
AWF-3/43
CDMA - GSM Interference
In many countries in Asia and the Pacific region, often, both CDMA and GSM systems operate in the 800 and 900 MHz bands, respectively. As shown, there exists an overlay of the 800 MHz base station transmit band (BTS TX) and the 900 MHz base station receive (MS TX) band. The CDMA and GSM systems have different carrier frequencies and different bandwidths, 1.23 MHz for CDMA and 200 KHz for GSM. The level of a CDMA carriers RF transmit signal and its inter-modulation signals should be within the acceptable limits at the GSM channel frequencies and should not cause desensitization or blocking to the GSM receiver. Figure 7 shows how close the CDMA Base Station transmit frequencies are to the GSM Base Station receive frequencies. This proximity is a major interference concern.
800 MHz Band

MS TX 824 844 849 869 BTS TX
890
MS TX
915
935 BTS TX
960
889 894
900 MHz Band
825
850
875
900
925
950
Figure 7: Frequency Allocation for CDMA and GSM Systems In some areas, the initial CDMA deployment is achieved by a sparse layout where only a subset of the final configuration of sites and Frequency Assignments (FAs) are equipped for CDMA.
Co-located CDMA & GSM cell sites
Figure 8: Co-located CDMA and GSM Cells Figure 8 shows a 1:3 co-located CDMA and GSM cell pattern. Co-located systems are also vulnerable to system interference and must be handled with special attention paid to the actual
80-W0469-1 Rev B
Page 23 of 49 6-1
November 2005
achievable antenna isolation and the site separation due to near-field antenna effects. Major interference problems between CDMA and GSM cell sites are: CDMA Base Station transmit out-band signals/noise falling in the GSM Base Station receive band CDMA transmit inter-modulation (IM) products falling in the GSM Base Station receive band GSM Base Station receiver desensitization by CDMA Base Station transmitter GSM Base Station receiver IM from two or more CDMA transmit carriers
A combination of one or more of the following solutions helps to mitigate each of the undesired interferences listed above: CDMA transmit band filtering GSM receive band filtering Guard band between assigned channels Physical separation of the cell site antennas
Figure 9 illustrates the combination of network elements to be employed to design a co-system deployment. We assume 2 MHz frequency separation (center-to-center), between the last CDMA carrier and the first GSM carrier to get better emission specifications. This results in 1.32 MHz of guard band between the two bands.
CDMA BTS Tx
Physical Separation (in m)
GSM BTS Rx
Tx Filter 0 dB
Guard Band 1.32 MHz
Rx Filter 0 dB
X dB Attenuation
X dB Attenuation
869
888.88
890.20
915
Higher the amount of Guard Band, lesser the burden on filter roll-off and the subsequent cost
Figure 9: CDMA and GSM Co-existence Requirements
6-2
Page 24 Rev B 80-W0230-1of 49
November 2005
Similar interference potential exists for the GSM mobile transmit (890-915 MHz) to CDMA mobile receive (869-894 MHz), but is considered less important because of a number of factors unique to the mobile station environment, such as: The random nature of movement of the mobiles, may be of less concern in a WLL network The relatively low density of close proximity mobiles of both technologies The path loss and distance of separation variability based on different assumptions The mobile power per channel being lower in order to produce IM products to another mobile
As a conclusion, it is reasonable to consider only the CDMA BTS Tx to GSM BTS Rx interference. In many countries where there is no strict and well defined zoning requirements and other regulations, it is not always practical to enforce or even assume that CDMA and GSM sites would be co-located. In order to design a workable system, as will be seen later, a reasonable safe distance of physical separation needs to be maintained, in the order of not less than 200 meters.
Additional transmit filtering at the CDMA BTS and the guard band specifications also provide reasonable site separation distances to be realized. Figure 10 shows the maximum physical distance (R) achievable in a grid layout between the two cellular systems. In practice, for a new service provider, however the real estate availability and antenna height positioning or the zoning regulations typically prevent such cell placement onto a desired grid position. CDMA systems are far more robust because of interference averaging compared to narrowband GSM cellular systems which employ frequency reuse to control co-channel interference (C/I).
R - GSM to CDMA max distance r CDMA cell exclusion radius
R r GSM cell site CDMA cell site
Figure 10: Overlay of CDMA and GSM Cells The capacity of a CDMA system is expected to be at least 3-4 times that of a GSM system of equal spectrum allocation. Thus, for traffic limited system design, far fewer CDMA cells are needed to deploy a network. This enables the CDMA site locations to exist at reasonable distances from the
80-W0469-1Rev B
Page 25 of 49 6-3
November 2005
GSM sites and still enjoy the flexibility of placement based on the subscriber user density or other network planning constraints. This may not be true in some situations where capacity requirements drive the cell densities of both technologies to be equal.
6.1 CDMA Transmit Out-of-Band Emissions

Transmit side-band noise is the amount of power that is emitted from the CDMA carrier at the GSM carrier frequency. The amount of transmit noise from the CDMA transmit side results in co-channel interference and cannot be removed at the GSM receiver. The necessary attenuation to this in-band interference, for frequencies greater than 890 MHz, must be accomplished by a combination of the following: Additional CDMA transmit band filtering Guard band between CDMA and GSM spectrum CDMA to GSM antenna isolation
A reasonable combination of the three methods needs to be implemented in practice.

CDMA Tx EIRP 59 dBm @ 1.23 MHz
70 dB
Power
CDMA Tx Side Band Noise Performance - 19 dBm @ 200 kHz
F tx
F rx
1.98 MHz
Frequency
Figure 11: CDMA Transmit Carrier and Sideband Noise Spectrum Transmit out-band level must be less than the GSM BTS receiver sensitivity level minus the C/I protection level. Acceptable noise level in GSM band: GSM receiver Sensitivity: -104 dBm (per 200 kHz)
Co-channel Desired to Undesired (D/U): 9 dB Acceptable Interference level: -113 dBm (per 200 kHz)
6-4
Page 26 Rev B 80-W0230-1of 49
November 2005
The following equation shows the required isolation between CDMA transmit antennas and the GSM receive antennas. Isolation between two systems is the total loss between the transmitter of the aggressor system and the receiver of the victim system. This includes transmitter/receiver antenna gains, propagation loss, feeder losses and extra filtering between the aggressors Tx and the victims Rx reference point. Denoting the minimum requirement on interfering carrier spurious emission as I tx and the total sum of all external interference power picked up by the victim BTS receiver as I rx , the required isolation, obtained through free space loss due to physical separation of the Tx and Rx antennas, is: Required Isolation (I isolation) = I tx - I rx
A typical CDMA transmit carrier power level of 20 Watts, with feeder cable loss of 1 dB plus a 17 dBi sector antenna gain yields 59 dBm EIRP @ 1.23 MHz. It is noted that the typical transmit side-band (spurious) emission specification of - 70 dBc/30 kHz obtained from working equipment is to be used rather than the specifications listed as per IS-97D (i.e., - 60 dBc/30 kHz) for transmit spurious emissions beyond 1.98 MHz from center frequency of the CDMA carrier. A bandwidth correction factor (BF) of (30/200 = 0.15) or - 8 dB has to be taken into account to get the spurious emission specifications at 200 kHz. In other words, the required isolation (I isolation) is given as: I isolation (dB) = Tx EIRP (dBm) + Tx side-band (dBc) - BF - Acceptable Interference level at GSM BTS receiver - RX feeder cable loss (dB) + Rx antenna gain (dB) - Tx filter attenuation (dB) I isolation (dB) = [59 dBm - 70 dB - (- 8 dB) - (- 113 dBm) - 1 dB + 17 dBi] - Tx filter attenuation
I isolation (dB) = 126 Tx filter attenuation
With a typical transmit filter having a pass band from 880 MHz to 889 MHz and attenuation of 56 dB at 890.1 MHz of a filter, the isolation required is: Required Isolation (I isolation) = 70 dB
It may be noted the CDMA out band signal will reach the GSM BTS receiver after suffering a free space path loss, cable and connector losses at both ends and CDMA Tx and GSM Rx antenna gains and antenna tilts. Antenna gains will depend on the type of antennas and angle of separation between the two and the relative tilt. Figure 12 depicts this situation.
80-W0469-1Rev B
Page 27 of 49 6-5
November 2005
Antenna down tilt d2 D Rx Tx
Antenna down tilt d1 Rx Tx CDMA Tx 869-889MHz
GSM Rx 890-915MHz
GSM BTS
CDMA BTS
Figure 12: Antenna position and separation D = Square root of (d + h) and m = Arc tan (h/d) Gt (m+d1) and Gr (m-d2) are obtained using Table 2.
Table 2: Typical Antenna Gain in Vertical Plane Angle in Degrees 0.0 2.5 5.0 7.5 10 12.5 15.0 and above Gain in dBi 17.0 13.5 11.0 3.5 - 3.5 - 5.0 -7.5
Required isolation is achieved through free space path loss (Xp), antenna and feeder cables factor (Xe), and the extra filtering provided at the transmitter. Total available Isolation (I isolation) = (Xp Xe) Free Space Path Loss (Xp) = 32.4 + 20 Log (f in MHz) + 20 log (D in Km) Antenna & Feeder cables Factor (Xe) = Gt (m+d1) + Gr (m-d2) CDMA BTS TX Feeder cable loss GSM BTS RX Feeder cable loss.
6-6
Page 28 Rev B 80-W0230-1of 49
November 2005
For example, even assuming that the last CDMA carrier is at 888.09 MHz (Channel # 603) and the first GSM carrier is at 890.1 MHz, we get about 2 MHz of frequency separation (that corresponds to 1.32 MHz of guard band). Required isolation of 70 dB corresponds to an allowable distance between GSM and CDMA BTSs of about 90 m under LOS conditions. Also, the antenna separation requirement, on the horizontal plane, would be reduced considerably with a slight increase in the separation on the vertical plane (due to antenna gain variation as per Table 2).
6.2 CDMA Transmit Inter-modulation

Assuming that unwanted channel power is generated in the CDMA transmitter due to intermodulation and it lands in the GSM receive band, the in-band signals have the form of co-channel interference to the GSM receiver and thus, must be protected from occurrence, similar to the transmit out-band noise case, with a combination of additional CDMA transmit band filtering, guardband between CDMA and GSM spectrum and CDMA to GSM antenna separation.
CDMA Carriers
CDMA Tx EIRP 59 dBm @ 1.23 MHz
64 dB
Isolation requirement For Tx Intermod levels
-5 dBm @ 1.23 MHz or - 13 dBm @ 200 kHz

GSM carrier F1
TX
F2
TX
F3
F
TX
RX
Figure 13: CDMA Transmit Carriers and Intermodulation Spectrum The required isolation to take care of the Intermod signals would depend on the CDMA BTS transmit IM levels, acceptable interference level at the GSM BTS receiver, CDMA BTS transmit power level, antenna gains, feeder cable losses and the intervening path loss. In a multi-carrier BTS scenario, most of the infrastructure vendors are able to provide CDMA BTS equipment with Transmit Intermod suppression (Tx IM) of more than 60 dB below CDMA peak carrier power. The following relationship shows the required isolation between CDMA transmit antenna and the GSM receive antenna. I IM (dB) = Tx EIRP (dBm) - Tx IM (dB) - (BF i.e.,10 log (1230/200)) - Acceptable Interference level at GSM BTS receiver - RX feeder cable loss + Rx antenna gain Tx filter attenuation (dB) I IM (dB) = [59 dBm - (60) dB - (8 dB) - (- 113 dBm) - 1 dB + 17 dBi] - Tx filter attenuation (dB) I isolation (dB) = 120 Tx filter attenuation of 56 dB = 64 dB Thus the required isolation of 64 dB to keep the Intermod signals below the receiver threshold is lesser than the required isolation of 70 dB needed for transmit side band noise. Therefore, if we
80-W0469-1Rev B
Page 29 of 49 6-7
November 2005
design the network to take care of the side-band spurious interference that would very well take care of the Intermod isolation requirement.
6.3 GSM Receiver Desensitization

GSM BTS receiver desensitization may result when a strong off-channel CDMA signal falls outside the pass band of the GSM receiver and would reduce the sensitivity of the GSM receiver. This is because certain GSM front end receiver stages may change bias conditions and lose gain and sensitivity. As per the GSM BTS Rx blocking specifications, the BTS receiver would tolerate 8 dBm out-of-band signals (but, most vendors supply GSM BTS receivers that would tolerate blocking levels of up to16 dBm) and a wanted signal of 3 dB above reference sensitivity shall be receivable with an uncorrected error rate of 2% in a static environment. The out-of-band signals must be protected from occurrence using a combination of GSM receive band filtering, guardband between CDMA and GSM carrier frequencies and the antenna separation between CDMA and GSM systems. To avoid receiver blocking condition, a guard band and antenna isolation requirement will again needed to be defined.
GSM blocking level tolerance 16 dBm
Power
117 dB - 101 dBm 3 dB above GSM Rx sensitivity of 104 dBm F tx F rx
Frequency
Figure 14: GSM Receiver Out-of-Band Desensitization
The following relationship shows the required isolation between CDMA transmit antennas and the GSM receive antennas: I Rx Desense (dB) = Tx EIRP (dBm) - Rx Desense (dBm) RX feeder cable loss (dB) + Rx antenna gain (dB) Rx filter attenuation (dB) I Rx Desense (dB) = [59 dBm 16 dBm 1 dB + 17 dBi] Rx filter attenuation (dB) I Rx Desense (dB) = 59 Rx filter attenuation Without any out-of-band receive filtering at 890 MHz, the isolation required is: I Rx Desense = 59 dB
6-8
Page 30 Rev B 80-W0230-1of 49
November 2005
In this case the usable distance between CDMA transmitters and GSM receivers with a 1.32 MHz guard band at 890 MHz is approximately 45 m under LOS conditions, which much lower than the isolation requirement to counter CDMA transmit out-of-band spurious emissions.
6.4 GSM Receiver Inter-modulation

If one or more of the receiver produced IM products resulting from high level interfering signals, fall on or near a frequency of the GSM receiver, the effect is that the product will be an interferer to the desired receive channel. Since the receiver is most sensitive to this in-band product, the IM must be reduced at this point by reduction of one or more of the mixing frequencies. again, the required attenuation may be obtained by a combination of techniques such as GSM receive band filtering based on how far away the IM signals are, guard band between CDMA and GSM frequencies and the antenna separation between CDMA and GSM systems. A combination of each of the three elements above will be defined in this section.
CDMA Tx carrier EIRP 59 dBm
106 dB
Power
- 47 dBm GSM Receive IM Specs F1 tx F2 tx F rx
Frequency
Figure 15: GSM Receiver Out-of-Band Intermodulation The receive IM level must be less than the GSM BTS Rx IM specification which states that a wanted signal 3 dB above the reference sensitivity shall be received with a uncorrelated BER of 2% in a static environment when two signals of - 43 dBm are injected into the BTS Rx. An allowance of 4 dB is made for the probability of multiple coincident CDMA carriers within a 20 MHz spectrum. Assuming again, most GSM receivers have 10 dB better IM performance than the specification, the required GSM receive IM attenuation is: I IM (dB) = Tx EIRP (dBm) Rx filter attenuation (dB)
IM
(dBm) RX feeder cable loss (dB) + Rx antenna gain (dB) Rx
I IM (dB) = [59 dBm (- 37 dBm) 1 dB + 17 dBi] Rx filter attenuation (dB)
80-W0469-1Rev B
Page 31 of 49 6-9
November 2005
I IM (dB) = 112 dB Rx filter attenuation With a typical receive filter with a bandwidth of 890 to 915 MHz and attenuation of 54 dB at 890 MHz, the isolation required is: I IM (dB) = 58 dB
The required distance between CDMA transmitters and GSM receivers with a 1.32 MHz guard band at 890 MHz will now be about 45 m under LOS conditions. Hence, it is observed that the isolation requirement to take care of the GSM receiver Intermod is lower than the isolation requirement to counter GSM receiver desensitization.
6.5 Recommendations
CDMA to GSM interference could be managed to lower levels with reasonable and practical restrictions as follows: Additional CDMA transmit filtering would be required in order to make the emission level of the CDMA BTS Tx (at the frequencies of GSM BTS Rx) at its power amplifier out to be at 66 dBm/200 kHz GSM receive filtering (with ~ 54 dB attenuation) with a minimum guard band of 1.32 MHz Isolation through physical separation of antennas of about 66 dB
Of the main interference issues between CDMA and GSM, the often neglected issues are the GSM receive desensitization and inter-modulation interference specification to out-of-band carriers. It is also recommended to verify that Extended GSM (E-GSM) in the 880-890/925-935 MHz band and Railways-GSM (R-GSM) in the 876-880/921-925 MHz are not allocated in the region where CDMA systems are also allocated in the 824-849/869-894 MHz band.
With a guard band greater than 1 MHz and a transmit filter pass band 880-888.8 MHz and a GSM receive filter (optional) 890-898.2 MHz, each having out-of-band attenuation greater than 40 dB, it is possible to deploy both systems in the same area, maintaining a site separation of at least 100 m.
6-10
Page 32 Rev B 80-W0230-1of 49
November 2005
880 MHz
890 MHz
898.3 MHz GSM A band (with 3/9 reuse)
CDMA Cellular B band 7 CDMA BS TX Carriers
4 BS Rx carriers
7 6 5 4 3 2 1
Guard Band
Each CDMA carrier is 1.23 MHz
Guard Band
Total available Guard Band at the boundary = 1.32 MHz
Figure 16: CDMA and GSM Carrier Assignments in 800/900 MHz Bands
If the separation distances are reduced, higher specifications to filters would apply provided the out of band blocking of GSM receivers could be avoided. The GSM receiver filter is optional based on the actual location of the GSM carriers.
80-W0469-1Rev B
Page 33 of 49 6-11
AWF-3/43
Page 34 of 49
AWF-3/43
CDMA - WCDMA Interference
In many countries in Asia, there is currently a debate as to whether PCS band (1850-1910/19301990 MHz) allocations can co-exist (even with partial allocations) with 2.1 GHz band allocations, also referred to as the UMTS band (1920-1980/2100-2170 MHz) and if so, what are the tolerable levels of interference and the required guard bands between these blocks. There is 60+60 MHz of spectrum availability, if allocated either for PCS or for UMTS exclusively. See Figure 17 for another possible sharing of spectrum between PCS and 2.1 GHz band allocations. In this band sharing proposal, there is a possibility of getting more than 60+60 MHz of spectrum.
75 MHz of DCS downlink
60 MHz of UMTS uplink
60 MHz of PCS uplink
60 MHz of PCS downlink
1805
1850
1880
1910 1920 1930
1960
1980 1990 Frequency in MHz
1880 MHz DCS-PCS boundary
1960 MHz PCS-UMTS boundary
DCS downlink spectrum UMTS uplink spectrum PCS up/downlink spectrum
PCS up/downlink spectrum available for allocation UMTS uplink spectrum available for allocation
Figure 17: PCS and UMTS 2.1 GHz Spectrum Allocations
In this band sharing plan, if the operators with PCS band allocation are the incumbents, then the case will be to protect the incumbents while allocating additional spectrum in the 2.1 GHz band. In some other cases, the argument has been to rule out PCS allocations to protect future IMT-2000 core band allocations. In figure 17, it is shown that the boundary between PCS and UMTS band allocations is 1960 MHz. With 5 MHz guardband (from 1955 to 1960 MHz) at the 1960 MHz boundary, one gets 30+30 MHz for PCS and 35+35 MHz for UMTS operations. It is possible to shift the boundary to either side of the spectrum (any where, from 1920 to 1980 MHz) to allocate different bandwidth sharing between PCS and UMTS operations.
80-W0469-1 Rev B
Page 35 of 49 7-1
November 2005
The following sub-sections evaluate possible coexistence issues between CDMA2000 network in the PCS band and WCDMA network in the 2.1 GHz band by examining the minimum guard band needed between the two networks. Major interference issues that needed to be studied in such spectrum sharing plan are: 1. Effect of CDMA2000 BTS Tx on WCDMA Node-B Rx 2. Effect of WCDMA User Equipment (UE) Tx on CDMA2000 MS Rx
Various studies conducted so far use deterministic calculations to evaluate isolation needed between the coexisting systems. The generally used procedure called the Minimum Coupling Loss (MCL) method (xii) tends to base the requirements for worst case scenario. The isolation is based not only on the out-of-band emissions but also on the spurious emissions and the blocking levels.
7.1 CDMA2000 BTS to WCDMA NodeB Interference

In this sub-section, the effect of interference due to CDMA2000 BTS Tx spurious emissions on the UMTS Node-B receive is analyzed. The Thermal Noise Floor (TNF) at the WCDMA Node-B receiver is calculated as follows: TNF = - 174 dBm/Hz (KT) + 10*log (3.84 MHz) + Receiver Noise Figure of 5 dB = - 103 dBm / 3.84 MHz
As per 3GPP specification [ix], a maximum tolerable level of interference (I rx) from the aggressor Node-B/BTS transmitter to the victim Node-B receiver is given as -110 dBm/3.84 MHz [ix]. With TNF value of - 103 dBm/3.84 MHz for WCDMA Node-B receivers, a spurious signal at the maximum tolerable limit of - 110 dBm/3.84 MHz would be 7 dB below the TNF value and its presence would cause a receiver sensitivity degradation of 0.8 dB, which is calculated as per the formula shown below: Receiver Sensitivity Degradation = 10 * LOG 10 (1 + 10 ^ {(I rx TNF)/10}) Also, 3GPP specifies a blocking requirement for WCDMA Node-B at a received spurious signal level of -115 dBm/3.84 MHz. The processing gain (PG) of the WCDMA signal is 25 dB (i.e., 10*log (3840000/12200)) and for a target Eb/It of 5 dB, the Node-B receiver reference sensitivity would be of the order of - 123 dBm/3.84 MHz (i.e., TNF + Eb/It PG = - 103 + 5 - 25 = - 123 dBm/3.84 MHz). In PCS band, the antenna gains are in the order of 15 dBi and the feeder cable losses would be around 3 dB. Hence, the CDMA BTS Tx EIRP would be around 55 dBm (43 + 15 3 = 55 dBm).
Assuming that the interfering CDMA2000 BTS in PCS band has a vendor specific spurious emission limit of - 75 dBc/30 kHz (20 dB better than the standards specified spurious emission limits of - 55 dBC/30 kHz) [xi] for a carrier-to-carrier separation greater than 1.98 MHz, the amount of
7-2
Page 36 Rev B 80-W0230-1of 49
November 2005
required isolation I isolation (dB) achieved through spatial separation of antennas to mitigate the interference due to the out-of-band spurious emissions can be calculated as: I isolation (dB) = Tx EIRP (dBm) practical value of 1X BTS Tx out-of-band spurious emission limit 10* log (30/1250) - 3GPP specified WCDMA maximum tolerable level of Interference - RX feeder cable loss (dB) + Rx antenna gain (dB) - Tx filter attenuation (dB) = 55 dBm - 75 + 10* log (1250/30) - (-110) dBm - 3 dB + 15 dBi Special Tx filter attenuation in dB = (55 75 + 16 + 110 3 + 15) - Tx filter attenuation in dB = 118 Tx filter attenuation in dB
Hence, with an additional filter of reasonable complexity and cost in the CDMA BTS Tx path with 60 dB attenuation (figure 18), the required isolation due to physical separation of antennas I isolation (in dB) = 118 60 = 58 dB, which can very easily be achieved by having about 40 meters of physical separation between CDMA2000 BTS Tx and WCDMA Node-B Rx antennas. With some vertical separation of antennas, one can use lesser values for antenna gains and hence the burden on the required isolation further reduces. The characteristics of such commercially available filter with 10 MHz pass band and center frequency at 1985 MHz is shown below.
Figure 18: Characteristics of a special Tx filter in PCS band CDMA2000 BTS
As per 3GPP specification [x], there is a 5 dB lower (more stringent) requirement on WCDMA NodeB tolerable blocking level compared to the maximum tolerable level for out-of-band Interference (115 dBm verses 110 dBm), which translates directly to an extra 5 dB isolation requirement for blocking due to Intermodulation. Therefore, the isolation requirement with physical separation of antennas to mitigate blocking would be around 65 dB. Hence, blocking would be the main issue for WCDMA Node-B.
80-W0469-1Rev B
Page 37 of 49 7-3
November 2005
By the way, there are no explicit requirements in band class 6 (IMT-2000) to protect WCDMA NodeB receiver in a co-area operation scenario from the spurious emissions caused by a CDMA2000 BTS of another operator. But, most of the vendors would supply CDMA2000 BTSs with spurious emissions that are most likely be significantly lower than the standards defined values, because a CDMA2000 BTS needs to protect its receiver from its own transmitter.
Similar to CDMA2000 BTS system, one can presume that the blocking performance of WCDMA Node-B receiver would most likely be significantly better than the standards specified value, because WCDMA Node-B system also has to protect its receiver from its own transmitter. Using specified performance values for BTS transmitters and receivers to establish Isolation requirements also leads to overly pessimistic results, since they are not representative of the actual equipment performance. As per the above calculations, around 65 dB of isolation requirement is adequate to meet the BTS to Node-B spurious emission as well as Intermodulation interference conditions and it is quite possible achieve such isolation requirement through physical separation of antennas with good antenna installation practices. 65 dB of antenna isolation is achievable with a site to site spacing of around 60 meters.
7.2 UMTS UE to PCS MS Interference

Similar to the case of CDMA2000 BTS Tx interfering with the WCDMA Node-B Rx, there is also another interference problem that would exist in such band sharing plan, WCDMA UE Tx affecting CDMA2000 MS Rx. In the worst case scenario, taking the WCDMA UEs maximum power level at 21 dBm and with no extra guard band between UMTS and PCS band allocations (i.e., with 3.5 MHz frequency offset), this signal would only get suppressed to - 9 dBm / 3.84 MHz (- 35 dBc/1 MHz per UE mask). With 5 MHz of guard band (i.e., with 8.5 MHz frequency offset), WCDMA UE Tx signal would get suppressed further by another 14 dB to 23 dBm/3.84 MHz. In general network scenarios, with typical peak transmit power levels of WCDMA UE of around 10 dBm, WCDMA UE Tx power levels at 8.5 MHz away from its carrier frequency would correspond to 34 dBm/3.84 MHz ( 49 dBc/1 MHz per UE mask). Hence, typical value of the maximum power level of WCDMA UE Tx at 8.5 MHz away from carriers center frequency is - 34 dBm/3.84 MHz = - 100 dBm/Hz Noise floor of the CDMA2000 MS receiver (with 5 dB Noise figure) is - 169 dBm/Hz and hence, 69 dB (- 100 (-169) = 69) of further suppression is required for the WCDMA UE Tx signal not to cause interference problems at CDMA2000 MS. This would translate to around 65 meters of physical separation between CDMA2000 and WCDMA handsets, under LOS conditions. But, this is for the worst case scenario, with stringent assumptions.
7-4
Page 38 Rev B 80-W0230-1of 49
November 2005
In reviewing the assumptions used in various other simulation methods to assess the effect of WCDMA UE Tx on CDMA2000 MS Rx, it is inferred that adding more detailed information using Monte-Carlo simulation would project very optimistic results while the MCL method as discussed above would derive unduly pessimistic results [xiii]. More over the isolation in dB required to maintain a reasonable protection, and the distance at which this is achieved is rather complex. One of the reasons is that the propagation models used will be in accurate in near field conditions. We have therefore used LOS distance for comparison purposes only. Handsets which are active at the extreme combination of maximum transmit power from the jammer and minimum receive signal at the victim occur in few cases.
7.3 Recommendations
Studies which investigated the coexistence of a CDMA2000 with WCDMA in co-area and colocation operation are based on deterministic calculations by assuming the worst case scenario, i.e., BTS/Node-B performance according to minimum requirements specified in the corresponding standard and maximum transmit power of BTS/Node-B. However, it is expected that the actual CDMA2000 BTS out-of-band spurious emissions and blocking requirements of UMTS Node-B receivers are significantly better than the minimum requirements because CDMA2000 system need to protect its receiver from its own transmitter. Therefore, the actual equipment performance found to be at least 22 dB better than the minimum performance requirements should be used. Based on this, a minimum guard band of 5 MHz is sufficient assuming realistic filters and separations resulting from practical antenna isolation. In actuality, the guard band between the UMTS uplink and the PCS downlink is always more than 5 MHz as explained below. It is also inferred that the capacity loss on the CDMA2000 downlink due to WCDMA UE is negligible under the assumptions above (with negligible noise raise in the CDMA2000 MS receive).
UMTS Uplink
Last WCDMA carrier Available GB: 0.58+5+0.625 = 6.205 MHz
PCS Downlink
CDMA2000 Carriers
GB Provision: 5 MHz
1955
1960
1965
1970 Frequency in MHz
Center-to-center frequency of 8.75 MHz
Figure 19: Guard Band Availability between UMTS and PCS Allocations
80-W0469-1Rev B
Page 39 of 49 7-5
November 2005
Provision exists in the PCS band allocations for a 625 kHz of inherent guardband at the edges. The occupied bandwidth of a WCDMA carrier is 3.84 MHz. Hence, 580 kHz of inherent guardband is available on each side of a WCDMA carrier. The total available guard band between UMTS U/L and PCS D/L is 0.58 + 5 + 0.625 = 6.205 MHz. See figure 19 for more details. Any increased isolation requirement can be accommodated by using more stringent Node-B / BTS positioning implementations.
7-6
Page 40 Rev B 80-W0230-1of 49
AWF-3/43
CDMA - Trunked Radio Interference
There would be a frequency conflict and hence in-band interference problems if two-way civil use Trunk Radios in their standard UHF2 band (450 to 470 MHz) and CDMA450 mobile wireless systems (452.5 to 457.5 MHz (uplink) paired with 462.5 to 467.5 MHz (downlink)) both licensed to operate in the same geographical area. As we know, in trunk radios both simplex and duplex (with Tx-Rx separation of 5.5 or 10 MHz) operations are used, whereas in CDMA450 cellular systems only duplex operations are used. The maximum carrier bandwidth of the trunk radios is 25 kHz, which is much narrower compared to the CDMA450 carrier bandwidth of 1.25 MHz (50 times more). The mobile trunk radios would generally have a channel spacing of 12.5 / 20 / 25 kHz (in UHF band) with an RF output power of 2 to 4 watts. The receiver sensitivity would be around 0.22 V (corresponding to 12 dB SINAD). The Static (Base or Re-transmitter) trunk radios would generally have higher RF output powers ranging from 25 to 250 watts. Trunk radios are field programmable and would have scanning / priority scanning facility to choose interference free radio channel. As the power levels of trunk radios are much higher compared to that of CDMA mobiles, the interference from the trunk radios would severely affect the CDMA operation. The results from the tests [xiv] show the following: 1. The co-channel interference would affect the performance of both the Trunking and the CDMA450 Systems. Additionally, the interference from Trunking system would cause receiver blockage to the CDMA450 receiver. There is no such receiver blockage effect seen on the trunk radios due to the presence of CDMA450 transmitter signals. 2. Even a low-intensity constant source (from the Trunking system) of the order of -80 dBm, if falling within the downlink carrier frequency, would severely affect the performance and/or make the CDMA450 System coverage unavailable at a specific distance from the base station. 3. A CDMA450 System would work well in the presence of strong instantaneous interfering peaks but would not work well in the presence of lower-intensity continuous interfering peaks within the same frequency of the CDMA carrier.
8.1 Recommendations
Based on the studies made, the co-band operation (with out proper guardband of at least 1 MHz between the trunking and CDMA450 systems) would generate severe interference to the operation of both systems. Hence, it is advisable to use different frequency bands to operate each system, as
80-W0469-1 Rev B
Page 41 of 49 8-1
November 2005
co-band operation would generate both spurious sideband noise as well as receiver blockage problems. It is essential to follow the appropriate bandwidth for the guard band between Trunking and CDMA450 systems. The amount of guard band required would mainly depend on how close is tolerable for a trunk radio to come near a CDMA mobile and vice versa. Also, it depends on the allowable transmitted power levels of the Trunk-Radio base stations or Re-transmitters. Another factor that guides the amount of guard band required is the type of RF bandpass filters being used on both systems. In the co-band operations, with proper guard band between trunking and CDMA450 systems, it may be possible to mitigate the effect of interference due to the sideband noise. But, the receiver blocking problem is a completely different situation. With insufficient bandpass filtering at the source of the transmitter, the victims receiver would inadvertently face the receiver blocking (desensitization) problem. Assuming there would not be any receiver blocking problems, if the regulator ensures the partial band for CDMA450 systems (from 452 to 458 and 462 to 468 MHz) is made free from the usage for trunking systems, then only co-band operations is possible with 450 to 452, 458 to 462 and 468 to 470 MHz bands for Trunking systems.
8-2
Page 42 Rev B 80-W0230-1of 49
AWF-3/43
Effect of External Interference to CDMA
External interference problems are more prevalent in areas where there is substantial growth in the manufacturing industry as well as the fact that other spectrum users may not have completely vacated their use from the civilian cellular bands. This study mostly takes into consideration the external interference from the non-cellular users in the 800 MHz band notably from external sources like ground radar which has been observed in many countries, heavy industry and power generation facilities, electrical construction equipment, TV transmitters, automotive ignition systems, two way trunked radios and other cellular systems that operate close to this band.
Forward link interference (into the mobile receiver) is rather unpredictable and can not be estimated precisely. Once service providers elect the acceptable capacity or coverage reduction caused by external interference, a tolerable reverse link external interference power level can be determined for the spectrum and site clearance purposes. In real situations, the CDMA BTS receives in-band interference not only from CDMA mobiles but also from other wireless systems. Therefore we use the term external interference to represent the received in-band interference from all possible sources except the operating CDMA system (which is self interference).
9.1 Effect on Reverse Link Coverage

Basically, the relationship between the average external interference power and the CDMA reverse link coverage is being addressed here. In CDMA reverse link budget for RF planning, no margin is normally allocated for external interference. If the cell is designed to the maximum allowable propagation loss dictated by the link budget analysis, the receiver noise rise caused by external interference may result in a reduction in the maximum allowable propagation loss (used to determine coverage). In other words, when the CDMA mobile is located at the cell edge, the BTS receiver quality target can not be maintained. Since the maximum path loss in the CDMA link budget is a function of the BTS receiver noise floor and loading factor, there exists a tradeoff between the cell coverage and capacity.
External interference from non-CDMA systems tends to raise the CDMA BTS receiver noise floor and therefore the reverse link coverage will be reduced. When the number of CDMA users remains the same, the CDMA BTS receiver sensitivity degradation (D) (ratio of sensitivities with and with out external interference) would equal to the noise rise caused by average external interference power. D = (Iext + NFNoW) / NFNoW
80-W0469-1 Rev B
Page 43 of 49 9-1
November 2005
where No is the spectral density of thermal noise, NF is the BTS receiver noise figure, Iext is the average external interference power (within the CDMA carrier bandwidth) received by the CDMA BTS antenna and W is the system bandwidth. If the propagation loss slope is known, then the receiver sensitivity degradation can be translated into the coverage area reduction. It follows that the CDMA reverse link cell coverage reduction ratio (Rc) due to external interference can be expressed by: Rc = 1 - (L1 / L2) ^1/ = 1 [NFNoW / (Iext + NFNoW)] ^1/ Where L1 and L2 denote the maximum allowable propagation loss with and without external interference and denotes the propagation loss exponent. This equation shows that the penalty in the CDMA reverse link cell coverage (or maximum propagation loss) depends on the CDMA BTS receiver noise rise as well as the propagation loss slope, and is independent of the CDMA loading.
If the average external interference power is at a level of -120 dBm (11 dB below typical BTS receiver noise floor of -109 dBm/1.23 MHz) causing a 0.3 dB noise rise, then the cell coverage reduction becomes about 4%. Service providers can determine a tolerable reverse link external interference power level for spectrum clearance based on the acceptable coverage reduction when performing the network deployment study.
9.2 Effect on Reverse Link Loading

Simple capacity models of the reverse link show that RF power from handset rises with loading. There is a theoretical limit or pole capacity, achieved when all users are transmitting infinite power. Beyond the pole capacity no handset achieves its SNR target, no matter what the power it transmits CDMA networks must operate below the capacity pole because handsets have an upper bound to the their transmitter power. When the marginal users are transmitting at maximum power, loading should not be permitted to increase. Conversely, if the loading is allowed to increase, then the marginal user handsets can no longer close their power control loops i.e., their SNR will fall below target. In effect, the cells shrink further due to loading. The effect of external interference is also to make the cells work at higher loading levels. This could be seen from the following equation.
The pole capacity (Np) depends on the target Eb/No, the processing gain (W/R), the voice activity factor (v) and the factor F which is ratio of the total (other cell and external) interference to in cell interference. Thus increased reverse link external interference has the effect of reducing the pole
Page 44 Rev B 80-W0230-1of 49
9-2
November 2005
capacity and making the cells work closer to the pole for serving the same number of users (existing capacity) within the reduced coverage. This neglects the effects of imperfect power control and the dynamics of the system. The 1x CDMA network should not be allowed to work too close to the capacity pole because the load fluctuations will grow in amplitude as the pole is approached. Load excursions will adversely affect the service given to marginal subscribers, possibly causing intermittent failures to close their power control loops and excessive frame erasures. Recommended loading of a 1x CDMA network is never more than 80% which is an appropriate compromise between loading and coverage.
9.3 Recommendations
It is observed that an external interference power of 120 dBm/1.23 MHz causes 0.3 dB CDMA BTS sensitivity degradation, which results in about 4% reverse link coverage loss. This corresponds to approximately 7 dB below the thermal noise floor (-113 dBm/1.23 MHz) in the CDMA bandwidth and hence special care is to be taken to measure the noise floor due to external interference. Once the service providers elect the acceptable loading factors for capacity or coverage reduction caused by external interference, a tolerable reverse link external interference power level can be determined. This approach will form the basis for selecting sites initially based on a spectrum efficiency point of view.
80-W0469-1Rev B
Page 45 of 49 9-3
AWF-3/43
Page 46 of 49
AWF-3/43
10 Antenna Isolation Guidelines

As it is seen from the earlier sections, the antenna-to-antenna isolation plays a significant role in the whole interference scenario. Interference levels are highly sensitive to the assumed relative positioning between interfering devices and victims. Interference levels are also highly sensitive to antenna choice, heights, and sectorization. Site engineering practices can improve the isolation and hence interference between systems. However, the limitations on the site selection would have an effect on the economics and the practical realities of installation practices. Good site engineering will reduce unnecessary interference, but cannot eliminate basic system incompatibilities.
In this section, the results from simulations/measurements of the antenna-to-antenna isolation from references [xv & xvi] between different types of BTS antenna configurations are discussed. The measurements are reported to have been conducted on antennas for the GSM1800 band. However, since this band is relatively close to the PCS and IMT-2000 core band it is reasonable to assume similar results for antennas to be used in other bands. It is also noticed that the results in 800 MHz band would not deviate much, as per some measurements conducted in India.
10.1 Tests and Measurements

Antennas with vertical as well as dual polarization and with different horizontal beam widths ranging from 65-90 degrees were considered. Measurements were made for antenna inclination angles of 90, 120 and 180, as well as, for horizontal and vertical separation. For vertical polarization, results indicate that minimum isolation varied from 35 dB to 57 dB over a horizontal separation distance of 0.5 m to 6 m. For vertical separation over the same distance, the isolation varied from about 45 dB to 70 dB. The results for dual polarized antennas were slightly worse.
The measured results indicate that the horizontal displacement represents a "worst case scenario". For this case the lowest measured isolation is found to be only ~27 dB when the two antennas are put next to each other. However, a displacement of even 1m resulted in a lowest measured isolation of ~35 dB. Also it is indicated, that the isolation in configurations with horizontal displacement can be improved by using different polarization on the two antennas.
For the cases simulating different sectorizations, using the same antenna mast, the lowest measured isolation is mentioned to be ~38 dB. However, when the antennas were mounted on different masts, the isolation increased up to ~46 dB based on how the actual orientation is. It is
80-W0469-1 Rev B
Page 47 of 4910-1
November 2005
therefore recommended to take great care while mounting antennas on the same mast, even though no general conclusions of this fact can be drawn from the results presented here.
10.2 Recommendations
About 50 dB of antenna isolation is practical in both collocated and non-collocated antenna systems while only 30 dB is practical with antennas that share the same antenna tower depending on a meter or more vertical spacing. An antenna isolation of 50 dB in practice could be achieved with a site to site spacing of about 30 meters while this value reduces to about 40 dB with a site to site spacing of 10m.
To conclude, we see large variations in the measured isolation, depending on the antenna configuration. However as a practical guide, if the antennas are in the same radome, a minimum of 30 dB isolation is easily observed irrespective of the frequency band of operation.
10-2
Page 48 Rev B 80-W0230-1of 49
AWF-3/43
11 References
i. ii. iii. iv. v. vi. vii. Radio Interface Specifications for IMT-2000 services ITU-R Recs, M.1457. Handbook on Development of IMT2000 Systems Proposed text of ITU-R WP8A-8F Version 0.1 Adjacent channel OTA summary, Qualcomm ESG internal report, June 2002 Undesired Cellular Channel Acquisition Problem, Qualcomm Internal Memo: 80-V6264-1, Rev. A, July 23, 2003 PCC.III/935/97. Report of PCC.III Interference Experts Group on Incompatibility issues between FWA and PCS systems. Submitted by Interference Group. September 25th 1997. PCC.III/1047/98 Interference Experts Meeting Report, June 10, 1998 Submitted by the Experts Group. June 11th, 1998 Radio Equipment and Systems (RES); Digital Enhanced Cordless Telecommunications (DECT); Common Interface (CI); Part 2: Physical Layer (PHL) ETSI ETS 300 175-2 September 1996 Digital Enhanced Cordless Telecommunications (DECT); Common Interface (CI); Part 2: Physical Layer (PHL) ETSI Draft EN 300 175-2 V1.4.1 (1998-02) 3GPP Technical Specification, RF System Scenarios, TR 25.942 3GPP Technical Specification, BTS Radio transmission and Reception (FDD), TS 25.104. 3GPP2, Technical Specification, Recommended Minimum Performance Standards for cdma2000 Spread Spectrum BSs, C.S0010-B, V1.0 European Radio communications Committee (ERC) Report 101, A Comparison of Minimum Coupling Loss Method, Enhanced Minimum Coupling Loss Method and the Monte-Carlo Simulation, Menton, 1999. Qualcomm Presentation to TRAI (Indian Telecom Regulator) on Interference issues, Oct 2004. Anatel-Lucent Interference Trial-450 MHz: Report PD.33.11.07A.0066A/RT-03-AA Brazil, July 2004. Antenna-to-Antenna Isolation Measurements, submission by Allgon to TSGGroup 4 (Radio) Meeting #8, 1999 RAN Working
viii. ix. x. xi. xii.
xiii. xiv. xv. xvi.
Prediction of Mutual Coupling between Base Station Antenna Arrays, P A.H. Mohammadian, L Golovanesky, S.S. Soliman, M.A. Tassoudji, Proceedings of 2002 IEEE Radio and Wireless Conference, Boston, MA, August 11-14, 2002.
80-W0469-1 Rev B
Page 49 of 4911-1

Interference Analysis and Guidelines For Coexistence

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Interference Analysis and Guidelines For Coexistence

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

ASIA-PACIFIC TELECOMMUNITY

Document AWF - 3/43 27 September 2006

INTERFERENCE ANALYSIS AND GUIDELINES FOR COEXISTENCE

MS. JULIE GARCIA WELCH Qualcomm Inc. Hong Kong

Interference Analysis and Guidelines for Coexistence

Cellular Mobile Frequency Bands

2.1 Introduction to Existing Cellular Spectrum

Generic Cellular Mobile Frequency Bands

Interference Analysis and Guidelines for Coexistence AWF-3/43

Table 1: Spectrum Bands in use for Mobile Wireless Communications

Interference Analysis and Guidelines for Coexistence AWF-3/43

Country or Region Specific Frequency Bands

450 MHz NMT A Band (4.975 + 4.975 MHz Spectrum) 925

Figure 2: Country or Region Specific Mobile Communication Bands

Interference Analysis and Guidelines for Coexistence AWF-3/43

2.2 IMT-2000 Spectrum

Page 8 Rev B 80-W0230-1of 49

Related Concepts and Definitions

3.1 Isolation between Systems

Antenna gain 1 Feeder loss 1 Propagation loss

Antenna gain 2 Feeder loss 2

Available Isolation between the two reference points

Transmitter of the Aggressor Reference Points

Receiver of the Victim

Interference Analysis and Guidelines for Coexistence AWF-3/43

3.2 Spurious Emissions and Harmonics

Page 10 Rev B 80-W0230-1of 49

Interference Analysis and Guidelines for Coexistence AWF-3/43

5th order Intermod (IM5)

3rd order Intermod (IM3)

3rd order Intermod (IM3)

5th order Intermod (IM5)

Figure 4: 3rd and 5th order IM Products of two Frequencies f1 and f2

Interference Analysis and Guidelines for Coexistence AWF-3/43

3.3 Receiver Susceptibility

Rejection of Spurious Response

Page 12 Rev B 80-W0230-1of 49

Interference Analysis and Guidelines for Coexistence AWF-3/43

Receiver Front-end Desensitization

Near Far Problem on Interference

CDMA CDMA Interference

4.1 Effect on Base Station Uplink

Interference Analysis and Guidelines for Coexistence AWF-3/43

Adjacent Channel Interference

Mobile of Operator 2 BTS of Operator 1

4.2 Adjacent Channel Power to In-band Power Ratio

Page 16 Rev B 80-W0230-1of 49

Interference Analysis and Guidelines for Coexistence AWF-3/43

Channel Spacing (MHz)

Interference Analysis and Guidelines for Coexistence AWF-3/43

4.3 Other Frequency Interference Sources

Undesired Cellular Channel Acquisition

Interference Analysis and Guidelines for Coexistence AWF-3/43

CDMA - DECT Interference

5.1 Interference Analysis

Interference Analysis and Guidelines for Coexistence AWF-3/43

Page 22 Rev B 80-W0230-1of 49

CDMA - GSM Interference

800 MHz Band

900 MHz Band

Interference Analysis and Guidelines for Coexistence AWF-3/43

Physical Separation (in m)

Guard Band 1.32 MHz