Adjacent channel interference

analysis

2011 Real Wireless Ltd.

Adjacent channel interference
scenarios
Study questions
1.23 What would be the impact of interference from adjacent WiMAX or TD-LTE
networks in the unpaired band on the operation of a low-power network?

1.24 What would be the impact of interference radar emissions in the 2700 to 2900
MHz band on the operation of a low-power network?

1.25 What other technical conditions might be needed to manage any

interference?

2010 Real Wireless Ltd. 2

 Adjacent channel interference scenarios
(Study question 1.23 and 1.24)
2.6 GHz band plan with adjacent interference bands
Adjacent channel interference
Adjacent channel interference from
from S-band radar
potential high power TDD macros

UPLINK TDD DOWNLINK RADAR

UL low-power DL low-power
block block

2011 Real Wireless Ltd. 3

 Adjacent channel interference scenarios
(Study question 1.23)
WiMAX or TD-
LTE BS
Interference
Indoor
user on
edge of
coverage

Uplink case
Interference
High power
edge of cell
WiMAX or TD-
LTE UE Short distance
and/or good LOS

WiMAX or TD-
LTE BS

Interference

Edge of
coverage
Short distance UE Downlink case
and/or good
LOS

2011 Real Wireless Ltd. 4

 Adjacent channel interference scenarios
(Study question 1.23 Scenario 18) As the UE
transmits a
relatively small
WiMAX or TD- proportion of
LTE BS
the time
Interference Indoor
interference
user on
edge of
from the
coverage
WiMAX UE is
Uplink case less significant
Interference
Assume High power than from the
uplink case edge of cell WiMAX BS (see
WiMAX or TD-
only is LTE UE CEPT report 19)
Short distance
relevant as and/or good LOS
However,
sufficient
interference
frequency WiMAX or TD-
from indoor
LTE BS
separation WiMAX access
between the points to indoor
TDD band and LTE FDD access
FDD DL low Interference points is a
power band concern and
Edge of
coverage
needs
Short distance UE Downlink case examining (see
and/or good next slide)
LOS

2011 Real Wireless Ltd. 5

 Adjacent channel interference scenarios
(Study question 1.23 - Scenario 18)
LTE FDD access points Concern
High power amongst
WiMAX TDD edge of cell operators about
access points WiMAX or TD-
adjacent
Value Units LTE UE
channel
interference
Local eNB 0 to 24 dBm between
tx power WiMAX and LTE
FDD access
Antenna 3 dBi points deployed
gain in the same
shopping
Bandwidth 20 MHz centre. Need to
interpret the
ACLR 45 dB
CEPT study
Propagatio free space path (report 19) on
n model loss macro to macro
interference
ACS 43.5 dB between TDD
and FDD
systems to low
NF 8 dB power access
points.

2011 Real Wireless Ltd. 6

 Separation distance between a low power
TDD AP and a low power FDD AP (20 MHz)
Target througput 37 Mbps
90.0
Separation 80.0
distance could Separation distance (m)
70.0
60.0
be within 20m 50.0 With 5 dB less
between a TDD 40.0 Tput 20%
degradation interference
30.0
and FDD access 20.0 between 20%
Tput 50%
point at 12 dBm 10.0 degradation and 50%
0.0
transmit power 0 10 20 30 degradation the
for a public Transmit output power (dBm) separation
indoor distance drops
deployment from 80m to
30m

2011 Real Wireless Ltd. 7

 Separation distance between a low power
TDD AP and a low power FDD AP (10 MHz)
Target throughput 18.5 Mbps
Separation 120.0
distance could Separation distance (m)
100.0
be below 20m 80.0 With 5 dB less
between a TDD 60.0
interference
Tput 20%
and FDD access degradation between 20%
40.0
point at 12 dBm and 50%
20.0 Tput 50%
transmit power degradation degradation the
0.0
for a public 0 10 20 30 separation
indoor Transmit output power (dBm) distance drops
deployment from 80m to
Separation distance is slightly greater (30m) 30m.
for a 10 MHz bandwidth when at max power
compared to 20 MHz bandwidth at max
power since the transmit power is constant
with BW so for 20 MHz PSD is less than a 10
MHz channel so the range drops slightly
2011 Real Wireless Ltd. 8
 Separation distance between a macro
TDD BS and a low power FDD AP (20 MHz)

Target throughput 37 Mbps

1800.0
This scenario 1600.0
Separation distance (m) For a macro at max
should take into 1400.0

account the 1200.0 power there is

1000.0 Tput 20%
practical 800.0 degradation approx 1km
separation 600.0 Tput 50% difference between
distance 400.0 degradation 20% degradation
200.0
between an and 50%
0.0
indoor access 25 30 35 40 45 degradation.
point and an Transmit output power (dBm) This is due to the
outdoor macro. lower target SNR
resulting in a larger
degradation in
throughput

2011 Real Wireless Ltd. 9

 Separation distance between a macro
TDD BS and a low power FDD AP (10 MHz)

Target throughput 18.5 Mbps

4000.0
3500.0
For macro at max
Separation power there is a
Separation distance (m)

3000.0
distances up to 2500.0 2km discrepancy
Tput 20%
3.5km for a TDD 2000.0
degradation between 20%
macro at max 1500.0
Tput 50% degradation and
1000.0
transmit power degradation 50% degradation.
500.0
for a 20% Tput 0.0
This is due to the
degradation 25 30 35 40 45 lower target SNR
Transmit output power (dBm)
resulting in a larger
degradation in
throughput

2011 Real Wireless Ltd. 10

 Conclusions from ACI TDD (WiMAX or TD-LTE) into LP FDD
There is a requirement for a separation distance between indoor low- power TDD deployments and
low power FDD deployments ranging between 20m to 80m for a range of increasing transmit
powers. This means TDD operators in the adjacent block to the low power uplink block will require
some coordination when deploying in the same indoor public area

A slightly wider separation distance is required for a 10 MHz compared to a 20 MHz channel. This is
due to a constant transmit power being spread over a wider bandwidth in the case of 20MHz so the
power spectral density is less than in the 10MHz case.

The separation distance between a TDD macro and an FDD low power access point can be up to
2.2km at the maximum transmit power. Further analysis for example taking into account difference
in antenna heights may also vary the separation distance i.e. Tall TDD macro mast may cause
interference to low-power access points at a greater distance (see study question 1.18)

Based on the findings from the study questions addressing the coverage scenarios using 18 dBm
EIRP to achieve satisfactory coverage for an indoor deployment would require a separation distance
of about 40m which can be considered reasonable without coordination

2011 Real Wireless Ltd. 11

 Previous studies on interference between TDD and FDD
systems in the 2.6 GHz band
CEPT Report 019 - Draft Report from CEPT to the European Commission in
response to the Mandate to develop least restrictive technical conditions for
frequency bands addressed in the context of WAPECS
Report provides a methodology for least technical restrictions to protect adjacent TDD
services. -45 dBm/MHz block edge mask should be used for base stations and -19 dBm/MHz
should be used for UEs. In block transmit powers are given with 61 dBm/5 MHz EIRP for
unrestricted BSs and 25 dBm/5 MHz for restricted BSs
CEPT Report 119 Coexistence between mobile systems in the 2.6 ghz frequency
band at the fdd/tdd boundary
Includes results for separation distances for BS-BS interference e.g. 1km with up to 10 MHz
carrier separation without mitigation techniques applied
ECC Report 045 - Sharing and adjacent band compatibility Between UMTS/IMT-
2000 in the band 2500-2690 MHz and other Services
This report focuses on the adjacent services to the 2.6 GHz band such as MSS, RAS and MMDS.
This was not directly relevant to the present study
ECC Report 113 - derivation of a Block Edge Mask (BEM) for terminal stations IN
THE 2.6 GHz FREQUENCY BAND (2500-2690 MHz)
This report had a specific focus on terminal station to terminal station interference and
deriving the block edge masks which includes the methodology and protection levels. Parts of
this report were relevant to the present study

2011 Real Wireless Ltd. 12

 Adjacent channel interference scenarios
(Study question 1.24 outdoor)
Value Units
Radar Tx 91.2 dBm
power

Front lobe Antenna gain 28 dBi

(main beam)
Pulsed wideband radar
Back lobes DL interference
Antenna gain -2 dBi
(side lobe)
Interference
HP 1.5 Deg
Beamwidth
ACIR 26.8 dB
Propagation ITU-R P 1411
model
Duty cycle 1.7 S

PRF 1 kHz
Adjacent channel interference from S-band radar into indoor femto
network, UE on limit of coverage is most critical
BPL 14 dB

Radar 12 m
antenna
height

Mobile 1.5 m
height
2011 Real Wireless Ltd. 13
 Separation distance between an FDD UE
and radar Outdoor
When in the main
Separation distance of FDD UE from radar - Main beam
Max throughput 82 Mbps beam the peak pulse
The antenna 0 20 40 60 80 power occurs for
vertical pattern
70.00 several micro seconds
60.00
which is considered a
attenuation is
Throughput (Mbps)
50.00
negligible interference
max close to the 40.00
effect
30.00 ITU-R P1411
radar and 20.00
reduces as 10.00 The UEs will
distance 0.00
experience
-10.00
increases. Separation distance (km)
interference power
However, the from within the
pathloss Separation distance of FDD UE from radar- Side lobes sidelobes of the radar
dominates due Max throughput 82 Mbps for 99.6% of the time.
to the large 0 10 20 30 40 50

power from the 70.00

60.00 Outdoor effects are
Throughput (Mbps)

radar 50.00
more severe than
40.00 ITU-R P 1411
30.00
indoor due to no
20.00 building penetration
10.00 loss attenuation .
0.00
2011 Real Wireless
Separation Ltd.
distance (km) 14
 Adjacent channel interference scenarios
(Study question 1.24 indoor)

Front lobe

Pulsed wideband
radar DL
Back lobes
interference

Interference

Adjacent channel interference from S-band radar into indoor femto

network. Downlink to UE is most critical case as assume sufficient
separation between S band radar and FDD UL band.

2011 Real Wireless Ltd. 15

 Separation distance between an FDD UE
and radar Indoor When in the main
Separation distance of FDD UE from radar - Main beam beam the peak pulse
Max throughput 82 Mbps
power occurs for
0 20 40 60 80
70.00
several micro seconds
60.00 which will cause a
50.00 negligible effect in the
Throughput (Mbps)
Separation 40.00
UE receiver
distance from a 30.00 ITU-R P 1411
20.00
radar takes into 10.00
The UEs will
account the 0.00
experience
-10.00
variation in Separation distance (km) interference power
antenna pattern from within the
attenuation sidelobes of the radar
Separation distance of FDD UE from radar - Side lobes
with distance. Max throughput 82 Mbps for 99.6% of the time.

0 5 10 15
70.00
60.00
The impact to indoor
Throughput (Mbps)

50.00 UEs is better compared

40.00 ITU-R P 1411 to outdoors with UEs
30.00 ability to achieve a
20.00
reasonable Tput at
10.00
0.00
distances under 5km
2011 Real Wireless
Separation Ltd.
Distance (km) 16
 Conclusions from radar interference into FDD UE
Interference from radar emissions consist of peak power when the UE is in the main beam of the
radar and the mean power when the UE is in the side/back lobes of the radar. This means there is a
difference in the interference due to the attenuation of 30 dB of the signal when in the side lobes.
The peak interference also occurs for very short pulse duration, in this case 1.7 S (Magnetron)
with a pulse repetition frequency of 1 kHz. This means a duty cycle is 0.17% which is considered
negligible to the UE receiver as the signal appears as a short pulse and not continuous interference
The horizontal antenna pattern beamwidth is 1.5 degrees which equates to (1.5/360) 0.4% of the
time the UE appears in the main beam. For 99.6% of the time the UE appears in the side lobes. The
mean (side lobe power) interference appears as a continuous signal at the UE receiver due to the
swept nature of the signal and the rotation of the antenna.
The degradation rate at the receiver is unknown without further measurement of the cause to the
individual Resource Blocks. It should be noted that for a 1.7 S pulse duration every 1ms will affect
the allocated resource blocks but it is not likely to be as severe as in the co-channel environment.
The resultant separation distance that should be considered in this scenario are those from side
lobe power scenario as the dominant effects of the interference are generated within the side
lobes .
Where circumstances may be improved from the scenario investigated for this study include:
Radar frequency higher up the S-band which will improve the adjacent channel Out of band suppression
level
An increased radar height may improve the situation as the vertical pattern beamwidth reaches the horizon
in shorter distance compared to decreased radar height
Lower peak power, this scenario used the highest possible licensed peak power which is not necessarily the
case at every airport. Some airports will transmit at peak powers 3-10 dB lower that the peak used in this
scenario

2011 Real Wireless Ltd. 17

Previous studies on interference from radar to 2.6 GHz band

WiMAX Forum Roke Manor

Separation distance for ATC 2.7 GHz radars into
WiMAX BS and UE was 104.8 km and 75.4 km in the
main beam and 14.3km and 3.9km in the side lobes
(outdoors) respectively
These results correspond reasonably well with the
separation distances calculated from our scenario.
Main beam: 60 km (max Tput) Sidelobes: 10km (max
Tput) UE only
This study used free space path loss with exponent of
3 + 10 dB shadowing. Compared to ITU-R P 1411 for
our scenario which is good for LOS situations and
capture the diffraction effects

2011 Real Wireless Ltd. 18

Previous studies on interference from radar to 2.6 GHz band

ERA Study for Ofcom

Carrier to Interference calculations showed correlation of the
peak and average power between the main beam gain and
sidelobes gain
For the majority of ATC radars the out of band emission
measurements were below -40 dBm/MHz, some radars were -
70 dBm/MHz whose carrier frequency was higher up the S-band
Between 600m and 800m there was no measurable interference
from the radar in one full rotation into a UMTS handset
This may not be the case for an OFDMA LTE UE as the pulse
repetition frequency can impact individual resource blocks
within the 1ms timeframe
Radiated interference measurements were of the BER within a
reference UMTS channel based on a data rate of 12.2 kbps. The
reference channel measurements are likely to be different for
LTE systems

2011 Real Wireless Ltd. 19